Towards a possible definition of "The Nation"

[QuizMaster]

What about someone who has moved here from Poland or China in the last 2 or 3 years?
Are they a member of the Irish State? The Irish Nation?
What about if they are from Scotland?
What about 2nd generation Chinese-Irish?
What about 12th generation Scottish-Irish?

[Riadach]

Well politically they are Irish, but culturally it is up to themselves. If you live amongst a community you may also become a part of that community. I think one has to give a little to adopt some of the cultural aspects without necessarily relinquishing any of your own. It its perfectly possible to be a member of two nations, but not possible for two nations to become one.

[QuizMaster]

...but not possible for two nations to become one.

Really? When did this stop being possible?
Considering the kingdoms of Wessex, Essex, Kent, Murcia, Northumbria etc have somehow become the English nation.

Likewise there wasn't always an Irish nation. For several thousand years there were people on this island but no concept of a single nation, let alone the name Ireland.

[Kev408]

These discussions on the concept of nationhood are interesting but not everyone will accept a definitive description of a 'nation'. Sperber (1994) defines nationalism as the doctrine that human society is divided into distinct, autonomous groups called nations, not always clearly defined, but possessing a common language, common culture and a common sense of destiny.

Giddens (2006), a sociologist, describes a nation-state as: 'A particular type of state, characteristic of the modern world, in which a government has sovereign power within a defined territorial area, and the mass of the population are citizens who know themselves to be part of a single nation'.

There are many other definitions and this shows that perspective is hugely important.

The relevance of nationalism is decreasing rapidly as globalisation becomes the driving force of humanity (whether we like it or not).

[forest]

your definition is so focussed on the Northern Ireland, Ireland border and serves only you and others like yous, self interest

That the definition would not be based on the living members alone, but also on past and future generations.

That is not allowing for the fact that borders change even in the last 15 years we have seen borders change in europe, even in the last year (or just over)
Borders change, Estonia and latvia share a common culural histroy with russia, they would be highly pissed of been lunped in with russia and what about Romania and moldova not to mention the balkans

And outside europe what about africa, look at a map of africa most of the borders are fake, obviously drawn lines of where colonies used to be and that brings one to north america probably the biggst fake of a border anywhere (USA and Canada).
And does Ireland and the UK and Australia share a common history after all most of the white man in australia came from here and the uk. Again what about the USA most of the white man there are europeans

we have a common history culturaly and otherwise, is the usa or austrailia part of our nation

[Kev408]

One only has to look at the changing atlases of Europe, for example, over the last few hundred years. They prove that nations are man-made. However, Ireland is a little unusual in that, like Iceland, it is an island and that should have made her borders natural. This was not, and is still not, being allowed to happen.

[Cael]

your definition is so focussed on the Northern Ireland, Ireland border and serves only you and others like yous, self interest

That the definition would not be based on the living members alone, but also on past and future generations.

That is not allowing for the fact that borders change even in the last 15 years we have seen borders change in europe, even in the last year (or just over)
Borders change, Estonia and latvia share a common culural histroy with russia, they would be highly pissed of been lunped in with russia and what about Romania and moldova not to mention the balkans

And outside europe what about africa, look at a map of africa most of the borders are fake, obviously drawn lines of where colonies used to be and that brings one to north america probably the biggst fake of a border anywhere (USA and Canada).
And does Ireland and the UK and Australia share a common history after all most of the white man in australia came from here and the uk. Again what about the USA most of the white man there are europeans

we have a common history culturaly and otherwise, is the usa or austrailia part of our nation

I think the artificial Romania/Moldova border is a perfect example. Most of Moldova is still in the Romanian state, only the north eastern part of Moldova having been annexed by Stalinist Russia, and a puppet regime made up of Russian colonists set up. Clearly, Romanians in "Republic of Moldova" still speak their own Romanian language, despite Stalinist pressure on them to speak Russian, and are still part of the Romanian nation.

[stringjack]

...

In order to take the cultural achievements of the nation into account, you'll first have to define the nation is, unfortunately.

...

I think a cultural record is something which can be descerned on its own. Of course, there is a continuity between Gaelic Scotland and Gaelic Ireland, but there are destinct differences too.

How do you discern whether a particular cultural achievement is part of a particular national cultural record? (Furthermore, whether or not nations can overlap, do you think cultural records can? That is, can a particular cultural achievement be part of more than one cultural record?)

[stringjack]

I dont think nationalists, in general, believe you cant be a member of more than one nation, but I personally believe that, for example, if Britain is a nation, then Scotland cannot be a nation. There may be overlapping membership, but if all Scottish people see themselves as belonging to the British nation, then Scottish nationality must be secondary and, indeed, meaningless - it become no more than a province of Britain.

You're begging a whole bunch of questions there...

Let's start with this - you appear to have added another criterion to your definition of a nation - that a nation is in some way dependent on how particular people 'see' themselves' - would you care to expand on that point?

[forest]

ja, but is there any desire in moldova to rejoin romania (other than to get EU passports and money) in fact they voted down such a choice in 94, not to mention the eastern part of Moldova that has broken away (although not internationaly reconised by anyone)
also what about Ukraine should the east part be reunited with Russia and or belarus.
Or germany and austria
Difining nations on past political events and espically posible future
events (which one can not pradict) is a dangerous way to defie a nation.

Also someone mentioned "natural nations" in the form of islands (ie Ireland and Iceland) an Island is an area surounded by water.
There are probably half a dozen of cases of islands that have two or more countries on them but the obvious one that comes to mind is great britian.
Should it remain a single nation simply because it is an island (be it with a tunnel now)