Is the nation state dead?

[Theatre of Trees]

State = political or geopolitical entity
Nation = Cultural and ethnic common identity

Nation state is in effect a merger of the two, an administrative unit that is based on a particular ethnic and cultural identity. Alternate polities would be empires, federations (Examples include Malaysia, United Arab Emirates), multinational states (Belgium, Switzerland), city states (Singapore). The UK is a strange case as technically it is not a nation state because there are four home nations within the polity, two of which have separate institutions, though there is a shared language and a degree of cultural unity.

 

[Buzzer]

Post #3 Gwylan clearly says when not if...quotes or no quotes.

I over-analyse? Ah well, coming from you who thinks England is a modern concept I'll not lose too much sleep. Better to over than under-analyse, Eh?

 

[beorhthelm]

A Nation State is often derived out of political necessity, expediency, or another Nation States imperial agenda. Therefore, to me, it is a folly.

a nation state a state based around a nation, not any necessity or agenda. it is the natural form for a state to take, with least likly internal conflict. most states do not form along nation boundries and we see conflict as a result.

it seems to me increasingly from the responses that "nation state" is being treated as the same as "sovereign state" or simply "state". or im being too literal about the term, though it seems removing "nation" from this subject makes it far less contentious.

 

[Eeyore]

Post #3 Gwylan clearly says when not if...quotes or no quotes.

I over-analyse? Ah well, coming from you who thinks England is a modern concept I'll not lose too much sleep. Better to over than under-analyse, Eh?

I don't think you over analyse. You contribute much to the debate. I just think that England is perhaps a bad example, because it is one of the few good examples. Africa, on the other hand...

 

[Garage_Doors]

See sig.

Most posters have them disabled, what does it say?

 

[Eeyore]

a nation state a state based around a nation, not any necessity or agenda. it is the natural form for a state to take, with least likly internal conflict. most states do not form along nation boundries and we see conflict as a result.

it seems to me increasingly from the responses that "nation state" is being treated as the same as "sovereign state" or simply "state". or im being too literal about the term, though it seems removing "nation" from this subject makes it far less contentious.

Have to respectfully disagree. Again, you could use England as a good example, but look at Afghanistan and Iraq. Essentially fiefdoms (certainly the former) and drawn up through expedience and outside interest. The true delineation in both being formed by tribal affiliation, religion (which often roots itself in the former) and, to a lesser extent language. Then we look at Africa and understand that, whilst poverty is often the source of conflict, the notion of Nation States is found wanting.

Nowadays we have Nation Building-that takes things to a whole new level.

 

[dingodan]

Most posters have them disabled, what does it say?

- Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract. -

 

[Colossal Squid]

It seems to me that those countries with a laissez-faire economy are doing quite well despite predictions to the contrary and once again socialist economies in practice are abject failures.

I appreciate I'm joining this a bit late but I have to pull you up on this statement re socialist economies being failures.

Whilst I don't agree with much of their politics, CHINA are still broadly sticking to a socialist agenda ands they're one of the world's economic powerhouses.

DENMARK regularly tops the charts for measures of happiness, quality of life and wellbeing.

NORWAY are the welathiest country in Europe, and one of the wealthiest in the World, boasting more resource wealth and cash reserves than many of the gulf states even.

Nextdoor to these two, SWEDEN also come out on top when polled about overall population satisfaction and quality of life.

America's sensible neighbour, CANADA, is a considerably more appealing nation to be a resident of. Why? Because they look after their own


Now none of these countries have a 100% socialist government but they all adhere to certain socialist principles, more so then we here in the UK or in the US. They're all success stories in their own right.

Now I personally think that economies of scale are a bigger barrier to successful socialism and with the exception of China all these countries have relatively small populations compared to their size, which makes it easier to to control and distribute welfare. China is a different kettle of fish all together and keeps its people in check through fear and mss killings. I am NOT in agreement with that. I'd just like to make that ABUNDANTLY clear.

But I do take issue with people laughing off socialism as a failure and stating categorically that all mankind is inherently selfish. Right wing politics and capitalism are systems defined by greed and self serving and it is UNTRUE that human nature dictates we all feel this way deep down. We don't. Some of us believe in looking after one another. I'd sooner end poverty than get on the property ladder. An alien concept to many perhaps, but I know I'm not alone.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Have to respectfully disagree. Again, you could use England as a good example, but look at Afghanistan and Iraq. Essentially fiefdoms (certainly the former) and drawn up through expedience and outside interest. The true delineation in both being formed by tribal affiliation, religion (which often roots itself in the former) and, to a lesser extent language. Then we look at Africa and understand that, whilst poverty is often the source of conflict, the notion of Nation States is found wanting.

Nowadays we have Nation Building-that takes things to a whole new level.

Two excellent examples, particularly Afghaistan. The reason the country has never really been conquered is precisely because it isn't really a nation state at all but a collection of tribes who share a love of their tribal areas, religion and weaponry. Pakistan would be another, the line of control arbitrarily enforced amid Indian independence and communal violence. That Pakistan IS a nation state could be held. That it acts like one is debatable.

However, i still hold that the nation state will be the model for the first world going forward, perhaps even more due to global warming. When the shit hits the fan with that one you'll see first world states pull the drawbridge up faster than you can say Nigel Farage.

Anyway, this is all fascinating and I have resolved to buy the magazine so I can read the article, but now, if you'll excuse me, I have an appointment with Radio Sussex....

 

[Colossal Squid]

This thread is making me itch for a game of Civilisation

 

[Eeyore]

Two excellent examples, particularly Afghaistan. The reason the country has never really been conquered is precisely because it isn't really a nation state at all but a collection of tribes who share a love of their tribal areas, religion and weaponry. Pakistan would be another, the line of control arbitrarily enforced amid Indian independence and communal violence. That Pakistan IS a nation state could be held. That it acts like one is debatable.

However, i still hold that the nation state will be the model for the first world going forward, perhaps even more due to global warming. When the shit hits the fan with that one you'll see first world states pull the drawbridge up faster than you can say Nigel Farage.

Anyway, this is all fascinating and I have resolved to buy the magazine so I can read the article, but now, if you'll excuse me, I have an appointment with Radio Sussex....

Is there a game on ?

My listening to the game is being fractured by the need to attend Fergal's 50th birthday meal. Much talk of Cricket whilst my mind is turned to events in TW8 (It's normally TW2...). I'll give him your regards.

 

[beorhthelm]

Have to respectfully disagree. Again, you could use England as a good example, but look at Afghanistan and Iraq. Essentially fiefdoms (certainly the former) and drawn up through expedience and outside interest.

? how? England coalesced to a single nation in the 9th and 10th centries, one could say that out of necessity to defeat the viking invasion, but it certainly was from a common ethinic and cultural people, and established a strong nation with own identity, common rule of law and customs that has persisted to the present. hardly fiefdoms, there was a single dominant King. i know the Normans added a different complexion with their French language and forgien posessions to rule, but the Englishness re-emerged later and Old English language survives, to rather prove the point.

Are Afganistan and Iraq considered nation states by anyone? i dont see that they are, as they have so many internal divisions and were artificially created by external powers. most of Africa's states are drawn up from imperial map makers, with no observation of nations, peoples, tribes on the ground. they arent nations. see what im getting at, there's defining lots of countries and states as "nation states", then saying they arent working as such, when they never were strictly speaking.

 

[Wilko]

Honestly, do you really believe that will happen? I'm a great admirer of socialism in theory, it's the complete answer to all our prayers and I say that in all honesty but it's just not human nature nor has any attempt at pure socialism resulted in anything but a dictatorship with less rights than a free market democracy.

Sadly, this is the reality.

 

[BBassic]

I'm not certain if this is the topic but I've never identified as an English man. I am English, and I am a man but I am only those things through sheer chance. To that end, the whole idea of nations/nationhood/patriotism etc. seems a bit odd to me.

 

[Garage_Doors]

- Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract. -

Thank you.

 

[Man of Harveys]

I do like the fact that the obvious truism that the nation state is a relatively modern construct clearly slightly confuses and unsettles some people.

It's one of the reason I find excessive patriotism so midguided: it's either essentially tribal - which might raise some "interesting" ideas about how one sees members of the same nation state who come from other countries or cultures, say, or you're basically worshipping pieces of paper written in the 18th and 19th centuries.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Is there a game on ?

My listening to the game is being fractured by the need to attend Fergal's 50th birthday meal. Much talk of Cricket whilst my mind is turned to events in TW8 (It's normally TW2...). I'll give him your regards.

Please do. Anyone who's spent that long supporting Luton Town needs all the good wishes they can get.

 

[Buzzer]

I do like the fact that the obvious truism that the nation state is a relatively modern construct clearly slightly confuses and unsettles some people.

It's one of the reason I find excessive patriotism so midguided: it's either essentially tribal - which might raise some "interesting" ideas about how one sees members of the same nation state who come from other countries or cultures, say, or you're basically worshipping pieces of paper written in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Any chance you can add 'Little Englander' to that post and I can finish my bingo card.