[Daktoria]

... multiculturalism would never have been allowed to happen.

Well... that's really not true because it assumes states perfectly respect cultures. Codified law ultimately depends upon cultural interpretation, but states aren't necessarily universally openminded to all possible interpretations of codified law.

I'll go on chat if you want to talk about this. It's a complex concept.

[Fasces]

The only place it is used as such is the public discussion of the United States - largely because the United States has no easily identifiable nation. Public discussion in Europe does not conflate the two terms.

I do not define terms as they are used by the lowest common denominator. The tradition of such New Speak in the United States, more so, is the single greatest impediment to productive discussion. I am talking not just of conflating nation and state, but conflating all sorts of terms, such as socialist and fascist, or tyranny and authoritarianism. That might be fine in bumblefuck Missouri, but you're discussing this term with an international audience, and in the context of nationalism, and thus it is important to use terms accurately, or communication becomes impossible.

Your entire argument, in this case, relies on a misunderstanding of the term, making it utterly meaningless, and a pointless waste of time. Yes, you are correct that citizenship in a state is defined territorially. No, moving into an area with a majority culture does not make you a member of that culture. It is that simple.

[Suska]

Think about what you're saying Dak.

Just toss out the cultural holdover, it's obsolete (at the very least contested) according to the operations of modern nations. We have firm territorial borders that define the physical body of a nation and culture doesn't enter into whether or not one is a part of it - being born or moving into that territory is what makes you a part of it.

No, moving into an area with a majority culture does not make you a member of that culture. It is that simple.

It's only you here confusing culture with nation. Obviously one is not Iroquois for living in New York. but an expat born in America with only an English passport is known as a British national, right? The question refers to what administration you are subject to, and those administrations are defined geographically.

[Andropov]

Nations change, do they not? The Britons in Britain were the main nation, or culture, before the Anglo-Saxons game. In time, the two fused together into one discrete identifiable culture and nation. Why could this not happen in the United States, for example, with the Hispanics?

[Fasces]

It's only you here confusing culture with nation. Obviously one is not Iroquois for living in New York. but an expat born in America with only an English passport is known as a British national, right? The question refers to what administration you are subject to, and those administrations are defined geographically.

The question does not refer to any definition, and asks you to define it. You have chosen a poor definition.

[Suska]

You have chosen a poor definition.

Show me.

[Daktoria]

Suska, how do you view say the disintegration of Austria-Hungary in terms of culture, nationhood, and statehood?

I'm picking A-H here because culturally speaking, A-H's diversity was very different geographically speaking from the geographic diversity of the U.S.

[Fasces]

Show me.

I have, and you refuse to acknowledge it. I don't particularly care what you believe. I just wanted it said that your argument is incredibly flawed.

[Suska]

I have, and you refuse to acknowledge it.

I did acknowledge it, you're wrong and I showed why; the function of the word nation is formally and explicitly tied to a geographically defined administration. This was true of Rome, but I'm not concerned with the historical use of the word - they would have different words for it anyway, geographic borders are far firmer and more rigid than ever and the way we use the term nation is clearly not primarily a matter of cultural, but geographic exclusivity.

I don't particularly care what you believe. I just wanted it said that your argument is incredibly flawed.

And I don't care if you agree, I just want to make you look like the fool you are by telling it like it really is while you try to defend your totally idiotic position. You're trying to use academic senses of the word to trump usage.

[Fasces]

The only place where nation means what you say it means is among the non-political American public.

[Preston Cole]

Nations change, do they not? The Britons in Britain were the main nation, or culture, before the Anglo-Saxons game. In time, the two fused together into one discrete identifiable culture and nation. Why could this not happen in the United States, for example, with the Hispanics?

Because the US was not built by Hispanics. It was built by white settlers and black slaves. Mexican/Latin American immigration into the US is the doing of a weak liberal state that hides the aforementioned fact under the rug because it's "racist."

[Suska]

The only place where nation means what you say it means is among the non-political American public.

Bullshit, it's what the word means even here on PoFo. The second largest way of using the term is archaic, a translation for Biblical or Tribal sources. A nation is a geographically defined community, it functions as such, the term is understood as such, that's the explicit and obvious content of the term. Iraq and America are nations despite radical internal cultural divisions, you can tell because they are certain to fight over administrative and resource border incursions, but even people of cultures acrimonious to the natives may travel across and be naturalized. Nations are modern (and borders are firmer) according to how blind the administration is to culture and ethnicity. When we want to talk about these things we refer to them as people, "my people" and cultural place "I come from" when we want to talk about citizenship we say "my nation".

[Fasces]

Only in the United States, largely because states has come to mean province instead, requiring a differentiation to be made between states and states.

[Suska]

I gave you the reality of modern nations, at whatever degree of informal cultural chauvinism, the functional definition - of Holland, Japan, Russia, Iran, etc is a geographically defined area with a - more or less - single independent administration; a nation is principally a territory. The only exceptions to territories maintained by recognized nations on the Earth right now are disputed (Palestine etc), or basically uninhabitable (Antarctica). The fact that people can use their "biggest gang in town" to favor a cultural category doesn't change where the line is drawn. Borders were drawn with blood, cultures are fluid.

[starman2003]

Why could this not happen in the United States, for example, with the Hispanics?

It is now, even if it can't be done overnight. Lots of non-anglo saxon immigrants have been fully assimilated--poles, italians etc.

[Andropov]

So what is wrong with immigration?

[starman2003]

By now, the increasing population of the US, coupled with high living standards, is beginning to strain the environment, so it may be best to stop immigration. In theory, another idea may be better: expel or kill the worst 10-25% of native born Americans and replace them with better immigrants.

[Preston Cole]

In theory, another idea may be better: expel or kill the worst 10-25% of native born Americans and replace them with better immigrants.

I would rather kill an intelligent immigrant rather than a dumb fellow countryman for the simple fact that the smart immigrant could threaten my nation.

Though I'm not sure what you mean there. Where would you send those dumber Americans when you theoretically want to build a world state? And why would killing them, save for the severely retarded, be an option? Surely those with lower IQs can be assigned to lesser jobs.

[starman2003]

..the smart immigrant could threaten my nation.

Strange attitude for someone who wants to live here. Smart immigrants are attracted by opportunities, hence are willing to be good, productive citizens. There are exceptions but it's far better for the country to get rid of proven liabilities than probable assets.

Where would you send those dumber Americans..

Maybe someplace where they can be killed with fewer or no PR issues. As for a world state, I meant under present conditions more or less. There'd be no place for them if the whole world was my responsibility.

Surely those with lower IQs can be assigned to lesser jobs.

Possible but not certain, if automation eliminates such jobs. And I said "worst" not "dumbest." There are plenty of "smart" people who are good for nothings and criminals.

[Dave]

Strange attitude for someone who wants to live here. Smart immigrants are attracted by opportunities, hence are willing to be good, productive citizens. There are exceptions but it's far better for the country to get rid of proven liabilities than probable assets. ;)

Preston Cole has a strong point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_school

Just because someone is economically productive does not mean he is politically (or emotionally) loyal.

Intelligent immigrants can be a very valuable resource, but caution is warranted--especially if you're in a country that already has good human capital.