Manning sentenced to 35 years

[sc94597]

mai said:

sc94597 said:

mai said:

sc94597 said:

"Nation" in the context I'm using (as referring to nation-states) is not a political term, it's a socioeconomic one analagous to the term "ethnicity" and historically the U.S was even more divided than it is today in terms of politics and economics.

A lot of today's nations have been more divided politically and economically in the past, doesn't really strengthen your argument here. I use nation in strictly nation-state meaning, i.e. in the meaning it was brought to the political sciences, which absolutely has nothing to do with ethnicity (btw how this's a socioeconomic term?). Spare me from Old French, Latin, Greek etc. -- not relevant.

It wasn't meant to strengthen my argument, in fact, it was an entirely different argument. Nationalism is rooted in the ethnocentric definition of "nation." How can a country with such a diverse cultural, ancestral, economic, political, and ethnic basis be one nation? How can a state with no official language, cultural traditions, etc be a nation-state? 

Just look at the characteristics provided by wikipedia. 

Ok, I'm on shaky ground here, but whatever.

Don't see it that way, nationalism (negative connotations aside) is above any ethnical or religious definitions, it denies them. That's the way the still relevant doctrine of nationalism was first practically implemented during and after French Revolution (American Revolution qualifies as well btw). It practically solved the social, religious and ethnical problems of France at the time, because religion wasn't able to do it anymore. Nationalism takes place of religion as leading ideology and, as many political doctrines, acts in many ways as religion. Hence the term "empereur des Francais" as opposed to "empereur de France", because French nation was born at the time. In that regard Americans are very nationalistic (negative connotations included but not exclusive).

//There're forums where people got banned for quoting Wikipedia ;)

I also quoted sources at major universities. Anyway, an easy way to refute these United States as a nation-state is this logical proposition. 

- Assume the U.S is a nation-state. If this is true, then why are there sovereign states (50 of them as of today) which separate the nation? This is a contradiction. 

A nation-state contains the whole nation and only that nation. It doesn't divide the nation among many other co-sovereign states. If you look at the period right after the revolution, you'll notice quite explicitly that there was no natural union among the colonies besides their geographical status. That's why the articles of confederation were tried, and that's why the U.S constitution was so contested. As time passed, these U.S became even more diversified with immigration.  

You can look at Musollini's Italy and Nazi Germany to get examples of nationalism rooted in ethnicity. You can look at Serbia's succession from Austro-Hungary for nationalism rooted in history. You could look at modern day sessionist movements, such as Catalonia for how nation-states form from imperial ones.