Htydjtk

Is the concept of nation explicitly ethnic?

I always thought that a “nation-state” was a synonym for a sovereign country, but the Wikipedia article on the subject reads a little ambiguous.

It is a more precise concept than "country", since a country does not need to have a predominant ethnic group.

"Country", "State" and "Nation" are often used synonymously to refer to political entities. But if you want to nitpick:

• A "country" usually means a geographical region.


• A "state" is a political organization which rules over a country.


• A "nation" is a far more fuzzy term. It usually means a group of people who are connected by culture and heritage. Some people might also consider common ethnicity to be a descriptor of nationality, but how ethnically homogeneous a group of people needs to be to be considered one nation is a matter of debate.

So People can reside in a country, but you can not be part of a country. Mountains, forests or cities can be part of a country, but people can not because people aren't geographical places.

For example, let's say you are a citizen of Arstotzka, but you currently work and live in Kolechia as a guest worker.

• You are currently present in the country of Kolechia.


• As long as you are in the country of Kolechia, you have to follow Kolechian laws, so you are a subject of the state of Kolechia. You would also be counted as part of the population of Kolechia.


• But as long as you speak Arstotzkan, live a typical Arstotzkan lifestyle, self-identify as an Arstotzkan and still have Arstotzkan citizenship, you are still part of the Arstotzkan nation.

A nation state is a state where the majority of the population is considered to be part of one nation and where no notable numbers of that nation live outside of the state. Real world counter-examples are:

• Cases where nations are split by state borders. For example, the Korean nation is currently split across North Korea and South Korea.


• Cases where one state governs people who consider themselves different nations. For example, a lot of citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland usually don't self-identfy as "United Kingdomers" but rather as "English", "Welsh", "Scottish" or "North-Irish" (although some people in Northern Ireland might consider themselves part of the "Irish" nation which is split between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom).

However, I would not be surprised if some people would dispute these two examples. You could claim that the people who live in North Korea and South Korea have diverged so far in their culture that they can no longer be considered one nation. One could also claim that the Scottish, Welsh, English and North-Irish are subjects of the United Kingdom for so long that they are now just different ethnic groups within one "British" nation.

Which groups of people are the same nation and which are not can be a very subjective distinction. And people often try to establish their preferred definitions to achieve political goals. For example, when a region of a country is having a referendum for independence, then the proponents might claim "We should be independent because we are a separate nation" while the opponents might claim "We should stay together because we are part of one big nation". Who of them is right? That's a matter of personal opinion.

No. The concept of a nation is not explicitly ethnic.

Despite the recent preponderance of intersectionality considerations, or the vast multitudes of nations that appear ethnic, a single ethnic build up is not an explicit requirement of being a nation.

It is possible for a national identity to exist as the superset, having a greater hierarchical ranking than ethnic considerations. Part of this can be seen as the general aim for the long arc of small 'r' republican values built into the Constitution of the United States at ratification. While there was ethnic flaws in the implementation of the concepts of individual rights and equal protection of the law, the last an assumed measure that wasn't codified until the 14th amendment, the Constitution is largely race neutral.

" But the 3/5ths compromise"

Rebuttal: would you prefer that slaves weren't counted at all, or that they were counted as full portions? The Southern states, with an interest in protecting their markets, wanted them counted as full people for representation, without the protections of the very document in question. Those opposed to slavery wanted it as none, to limit the Souths power; the downside here is it would codify their lack of personhood even further. Instead, there was a compromise. Some measure of counting, but not the full measure because they aren't enfranchised.

To the Point
A nation can exist independent of a shared ethnic background. Look to the UK; while the vast majority of the populace shares the same melanon content, they are different ethnic group.