Making It Hard For Immigrants To Get By

[Cyclotron]

While I agree with what you say in principle, you've invented a whole new definition for the word ethnicity.

I think this is key to the whole disagreement here. I believe that modern political theorists and wiriters have basically turned away from any specifically genetic definition of ethnicity - it's simply anachronistic, fitting colonialism better than modern thought. He didn't invent it, and neither did I. It's becoming more and more accepted now that ethnicity, in its political sense, is an identity composed of believed shared traits like origin, ancestry, language, religion, culture, traditions, geographical location, and so on (though not neccessarily all of these). This makes the American nationality equally valid as other nationalities, even if it's not as old or if its constituents have little in common in terms of genetic similarity and ancestry.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
You're not understanding what fundamentally makes something a nation.

Nothing fundimentally makes a nation. Nations are imagined communities, inventions of people. Americans are a nation simply because we conceive of ourselves as one. It took an effort and bloody civil war to make it happen, but we are a nation.

Yes, we have regional differences, but despite the vast distances, the difference between a Southerner and a New Englander are significanly less than a Normandian and a Provencial or a Lombard and a Puglian. Hell, Northern and Southern Germans can barely understand one another.

And new nations are forming all the time. Sixty years ago, there was no such thing as an Israeli or a Palestinian. Today there are.

What makes an American an American is different from what makes a Brit a Brit in its specifics. But essentially, all nations are formed not by blood, culture, language, etc., but by shared community. That's why the Swiss are a nation while the Austrians do not share nationhood with the Germans. It's why there used to be a Yugoslav nation and now there isn't.

[Kuciwalker]

It took an effort and bloody civil war to make it happen, but we are a nation.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

[chequita guevara]

We weren't really a nation when Abe wrote that. It was rhetoric that has become part of our national heritage. At the time of the Civil War, people were Virginians or New Yorkers first, Americans 2nd.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Ok, we're splitting hairs here now.

I mean nation in the anthropological sense of the word, perhaps colloquially it means something different. To me, a nation is a particular ethnic group, of which virtually every one on the planet is represented within the United States.

Also, I would still argue that there are great regional, cultural differences within the United States... on par with that of European countries. I think these differences are not studied in favour of a promoting national unity, but that they do exist in perhaps a subtler form that you might find in Europe. But this is another argument...

[JimmyCracksCorn]

By the way, Che, I would argue that what you are describing is a sense of "national identity" rather than the American people collectively forming a "nation". I think there is a distinction to be made between the two.

[Kuciwalker]

I think any distinction between the two is the splitting hairs, JCC.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Far from it, Kuci. I'm trying to rectify the colloquial usage of the word nation with the more academic version so that we can have some kind of agreement.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Far from it, Kuci. I'm trying to rectify the colloquial usage of the word nation with the more academic version so that we can have some kind of agreement.

I've studied about nations in academia, and Che is right (except that his assessment of France's regional differences is about 120 years obsolete).

You're looking for the word "ethnical group".

[GePap]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Far from it, Kuci. I'm trying to rectify the colloquial usage of the word nation with the more academic version so that we can have some kind of agreement.

Here, here.

Nation =/ State
State =/ country

There is a reason the idea of Nation-state exists. Because nation and state are two different ideas.

You can have a multinational state, like an Empire, such as the Roman, Russian, or Habsburg empires, heck, like the United Kingdom.

Actually, the UNited Kingdom is a nice example of country, nation, and state at work. After all, are Scotts and Englishmen members of the same nation?

[GePap]

Originally posted by DaShi


Exactly, you see the light. I'm discussing illegal immigration in the US and you're discussing Mesoamerican culture. Completely irrelevant to eachother. That has always been my point, just took a bit of a work around to get you to see it. But there it is.

If you look at the OP, the point fo the thread is that Mexico has far more stringent rules on immigration than the US. A discussion on Mexican culture is as relevant to the OP as your point, if not more.

But it doesn't. Japanese culture doesn't come in Spanish either.

Here is a question, if Rock and Roll is an american art form (which it is), is Shakira an agent of American culture, or Colombian culture, or neither, or both?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap


If you look at the OP, the point fo the thread is that Mexico has far more stringent rules on immigration than the US. A discussion on Mexican culture is as relevant to the OP as your point, if not more.

I already addressed the extent that culture plays in the decision.

Here is a question, if Rock and Roll is an american art form (which it is), is Shakira an agent of American culture, or Colombian culture, or neither, or both?

How much depends on the lyrics. Also, if the song is in English it will reflect a more American culture than Columbian. Spanish vice versa.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Spiffor

You're looking for the word "ethnical group".

Which is exactly what a nation is.

The word you're looking for is the "state".

There is a reason the idea of Nation-state exists. Because nation and state are two different ideas.

Exactly. It annoys me when political commentators talk of the "nation-state", especially with regards to Canada and the United States - perhaps the two countries furthest away in reality from that designation.

And to Kuci, Dashi, etc: If the US is a nation as a whole, where do the Iroquois, Cherokee, Inuit, etc nations fit into that fabric (as I would assume most people here would validate the claims, both historical and political, these groups have to nationhood). Can multiple nations exist within one nation, and if so, doesn't that undo your concept of what a nation is?

I think what you people are trying to describe is the white, protestant culture which has, historically, dominated the United States, as well as all of the other groups of people which have been assimilated into this group since immigrating. This is not a nation, this is called the dominant culture of a country. Dominant does not equal everyone, or even come close to it.

If your perception of "nation" is one which assumes the dominant culture ought to represent the whole and that all outlying groups should assimilate, then you should flag this, as it is untraditional and not in line with more serious discussions of nations.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

How much depends on the lyrics. Also, if the song is in English it will reflect a more American culture than Columbian. Spanish vice versa.

Culture is inescapabale. Something as inane as lyrics in a song really have little to do with what culture someone is or is not "representing".

The only way someone can "switch cultures" in a psychological way (if its even possible) would require decades of intense immersion. Ethnographers have grappled with this problem for centuries.

Shakira will always represent Colombian culture, or more broadly speaking, Latin American culture. Her singing in English or in an American pop style is simply her utilizing an American tool of musical expression while the output of that expression will always be decidedly Colombian. And this is assuming she does not belong to any national or sub-national entity within Colombia.