Hacker News Reader

> A nation is a group of people that agree they have a common ancestral origin (note that this may be factually untrue!).

The Oxford dictionary defines it as "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." So, they also include physical proximity.

So, religion, language or just history may constitute enough commonality to talk about a "nation".

In my experience is also quite common to see that people disagrees about their own nations extend. In Catalonia some people may think that they are "Catalan" meanwhile others think that they are "Spanish", and both groups may have common ancestry.

> The Oxford dictionary defines it as "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." So, they also include physical proximity.

Dictionaries, Oxford or otherwise, gives definitions of words in colloquial uses as well. According to OED, "literally" now also means "figuratively":

> 3. (informal) used to emphasize a word or phrase, even if it is not actually true in a literal sense

* https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis...

The day-to-day use of a word may be looser than that used by experts' use in a particular field. The use of the word "hacker" or "hack" in the general public may have a different meaning/connotation/history than to people on HN.

Dictionary definitions are for everyday meaning of words. Academic definitions are for academic discussions - which the article refers to. Both can diverge, and often do significantly (i.e. the meaning "crypto" right now in the general internet vs. its meaning in computer science).

> Dictionary definitions are for everyday meaning of words. Academic definitions are for academic discussions - which the article refers to. Both can diverge, and often do significantly (i.e. the meaning "crypto" right now in the general internet vs. its meaning in computer science).

Barrington 1997 (227 cites), the first result when you search "definition nation" in Google Scholar, defines a nation as "a collective united by shared cultural features and the belief in the right to territorial self-determination." The United States certainly falls into this definition.

A more verbose quote from that paper: "What makes nations unique is that they are collectives united by shared cultural features (myths, values, etc.) and the belief in the right to territorial self-determination. Thus, nations are groups of people linked by unifying traits and the desire to control a territory that is thought of as the group's national homeland. The belief in the right to territorial control is central to distinguishing nations from other collectives. Many groups hold common myths, values, and symbols (e.g., religious groups, ethnic groups, or even professional associations). But nations are not just unified by culture; they are unified by a sense of purpose: controlling the territory that the members of the group believe to be theirs."

This is almost identical to the use Bret Devereaux uses in the artice.

It is not any shared cultural feature (but e.g. a common origin myth would fit), and the people have to feel a sense of purpose, of common past and future relative to their homeland. As stated in the article, that certainly fits Native American Nations, but not the US as a whole, as Barrington discusses in the next paragraph, "Nation: Misuses".

From Devereaux: "A nation... is an entity that is imagined to extend both into the past and into the future, recreating itself, generation to generation; it is through the common birth that the common culture and history are supposedly shared." "Attempting to find a common birth origin for even a slim majority of Americans is a hopeless case."

From Barrington: "Also, and more important, nations need not even be based on a certain ethnic identity. Thus, the words "shared cultural features" in the definition of nation above should not be read as "shared ethnic identity."

Very few European nation states fit Devereaux's concept of a nation. The Normans (Scandinavian), the Franks (Germanic), and the Galic-Romans (Romanized Celts) all make up a significant part of the historical French population. And yet, even though a majority of French citizens didn't even speak French until the 19th century (compare this against a 75-80% English literacy rate in the US at the same time), no one today would argue that France isn't a nation state.

> The US instead is built on citizenship.

If you put it that way, I read it as "in contrast with e.g. Germany or France". However those countries are also built on citizenship. Oh of course you will have far-right people wanting to stop all immigration (and be racist against people they don't find similar enough, physically, culturally, or because of some arbitrary amount of ancestry origin), etc. but given that the same thing happens in the US, I don't get the substance of the difference.

You aren't a nation until you become one. And I would find it depressing to refuse to become one just because of the variety of random physical traits and/or a kind of fossilization of cultures. Complete assimilation and convergence to a mean may be undesirable, but even more is excessive segregation...

So the question can boil down to when can the "common ancestral origin" stop? Because if e.g. 3 generations is enough (and why not) it could be easy enough to agree on becoming one.

> If you put it that way, I read it as "in contrast with e.g. Germany or France". However those countries are also built on citizenship.

The distinction between these three has been discussed very deeply in political science (in Germany, I have no idea about the US discourse). Usually these three can be imagined as different points on a scale, with the US on the citizenship end, France in between and Germany at the ethnic end.

Of course the German state nowadays doesn't refer to race as the defining element anymore, but there is still a distinct difference in the minds of the average citizen.

I've heard a great anecdote about this in university: If an immigrant in the US raises the US flag on the 4th of July, this would be seen as quite normal behaviour. If an immigrant in Germany would raise the German flag on 3rd of October (the German equivalent to 7/4), that would usually result in raised eyebrows.

This does not imply that the Germans are racist here, just that the unconscious definition of what it means to be a part of a nation is still quite different from the US. It more heavily refers to common values and allegiance to the constitution in the US, and common ancestry in Germany.

> If an immigrant in Germany would raise the German flag on 3rd of October (the German equivalent to 7/4), that would usually result in raised eyebrows.

> This does not imply that the Germans are racist here, just that the unconscious definition of what it means to be a part of a nation is still quite different from the US. It more heavily refers to common values and allegiance to the constitution in the US, and common ancestry in Germany.

That's a bad example, anyone raising the German flag on 3rd of October results in raised eyebrows.

Thanks for this.

It really does feel as if no-one below actually read the entire article.

Why? He doesn't give a definition, and the individual points are largely wrong.

Actual academic definitions:

- Nodia, 1994: "a nation is a community of people organized around the idea of self-determination"

- Haas, 1986: "a socially mobilized body of individuals, believing themselves to be united by some set of characteristics that differentiate them (in their own minds) from outsiders, striving to create or maintain their own state"

- Barrington, 1997: "collectives united by shared cultural features and the belief in the right to territorial self-determination"