Diversity and Multiculturalism II:Make Diversity Great Again

[Estanglia]

Your choice, but you will not find the information you repeatedly seek then.

Except you can provide it easily. You don't even have to quote your own posts, simply tell us your definition of a nation, as you've claimed America is not a nation when, by all dictionary definitions, it is.

To have me bring up a discussion I already discussed, in full, to discuss again, in full, to bring up later and discuss again, in full, is not how a discussion works either. It's a little bit of both. I welcome new inquiries.

Here's an inquiry from someone relatively new to this thread: what is your definition of a nation?

So the South is no major organization?

Nope. It is a region, not an organisation. It's like saying Asia is an organisation; all it is is a region (in the Asia example, a continent).

[San Lumen]

Your choice, but you will not find the information you repeatedly seek then.

Except you can provide it easily. You don't even have to quote your own posts, simply tell us your definition of a nation, as you've claimed America is not a nation when, by all dictionary definitions, it is.

To have me bring up a discussion I already discussed, in full, to discuss again, in full, to bring up later and discuss again, in full, is not how a discussion works either. It's a little bit of both. I welcome new inquiries.

Here's an inquiry from someone relatively new to this thread: what is your definition of a nation?

So the South is no major organization?

Nope. It is a region, not an organisation. It's like saying Asia is an organisation; all it is is a region (in the Asia example, a continent).

So what is the definition of a nation to you?

[Estanglia]

Except you can provide it easily. You don't even have to quote your own posts, simply tell us your definition of a nation, as you've claimed America is not a nation when, by all dictionary definitions, it is.

Here's an inquiry from someone relatively new to this thread: what is your definition of a nation?

Nope. It is a region, not an organisation. It's like saying Asia is an organisation; all it is is a region (in the Asia example, a continent).

So what is the definition of a nation to you?

To me? Simple: a Nation is an area of land that shares the same legal system, political system and leader without being under the control of another, separate nation (if you need more clarification, ask). For example, the US is a nation as all of its territory follows its legal codes, its political system and its leader. Canada is not part of the US nation, for example, because it does not share the exact same legal and political system, and has a different leader, but is a nation in and of itself. And no, states in the US aren't separate nations because they have the US system above theirs, on the federal level, despite the states' autonomy.

[San Lumen]

So what is the definition of a nation to you?

To me? Simple: a Nation is an area of land that shares the same legal system, political system and leader without being under the control of another, separate nation (if you need more clarification, ask). For example, the US is a nation as all of its territory follows its legal codes, its political system and its leader. Canada is not part of the US nation, for example, because it does not share the exact same legal and political system, and has a different leader, but is a nation in and of itself. And no, states in the US aren't separate nations because they have the US system above theirs, on the federal level, despite the states' autonomy.

Thats a excellent definition

[Olerand]

To me? Simple: a Nation is an area of land that shares the same legal system, political system and leader without being under the control of another, separate nation (if you need more clarification, ask). For example, the US is a nation as all of its territory follows its legal codes, its political system and its leader. Canada is not part of the US nation, for example, because it does not share the exact same legal and political system, and has a different leader, but is a nation in and of itself. And no, states in the US aren't separate nations because they have the US system above theirs, on the federal level, despite the states' autonomy.

Thats a excellent definition

That's a country. No wonder this topic has been turning around and around for so long. Do Anglo-Saxon schools even teach the difference between a country and a nation? Maybe that's why I keep getting accosted on these frivolous grounds.

Let me ask this, are the Kurds a nation?

[San Lumen]

Thats a excellent definition

That's a country. No wonder this topic has been turning around and around for so long. Do Anglo-Saxon schools even teach the difference between a country and a nation? Maybe that's why I keep getting accosted on these frivolous grounds.

Let me ask this, are the Kurds a nation?

No thats an ethnic group

[Olerand]

That's a country. No wonder this topic has been turning around and around for so long. Do Anglo-Saxon schools even teach the difference between a country and a nation? Maybe that's why I keep getting accosted on these frivolous grounds.

Let me ask this, are the Kurds a nation?

No thats an ethnic group

The Kurds are a nation. There's the problem. As this thread is so fond of basic definitions, look up the political definition of a nation. It is not a country.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

No thats an ethnic group

The Kurds are a nation.

No they're an ethnic group. Kurdistan is a nation.

[Olerand]

The Kurds are a nation.

No they're an ethnic group. Kurdistan is a nation.

Kurdistan is the name given to the Kurdish nation. France is the nation of the French. It has the name France because of the French. It is the French nation, the nation of the French. France, the Kingdom, was a country but not a nation. France the Republic is a country and a nation, the French nation. Kurdistan is the name of the Kurdish nation, the Kurds are a nation.

A country is not a nation.

There's the core of this hyper-repetitive problem that this thread suffers from, people apparently aren't taught that.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

No they're an ethnic group. Kurdistan is a nation.

Kurdistan is the name given to the Kurdish nation. France is the nation of the French.

Not all French people are in France :\

[Olerand]

Kurdistan is the name given to the Kurdish nation. France is the nation of the French.

Not all French people are in France :\

Not all ethnic French are in France. But France is the nation of the French. The ethnic French are not necessarily of the French nation, and members of the French nation need not be ethnic French. Again, look up what a nation is. The Québecois are ethnically French, but not a part of the French nation; the overseas regions of France are not ethnically French, but are a part of the French nation.

[Nocturnalis]

Kurdistan is the name given to the Kurdish nation. France is the nation of the French.

Not all French people are in France :\

Congratulations, you've just discovered Irredentism!

[Bienenhalde]

We do, there are no monarchists to speak of in France.

Really? In all of France, out of all 67 million of you, there is not a single monarchist? You all think alike?

Is France a hivemind? I'm having a hard time taking you seriously.

No faction to call the French Revolution the war of Republican agression. You need not come to the same conclusion in history, but you do need to understand it similarly.

[/quote]
I myself have a friend on Facebook who is a French monarchist, so Olerand's generalization here is not valid.

[Olerand]

I myself have a friend on Facebook who is a French monarchist, so Olerand's generalization here is not valid.

Did you purposefully ignore my other posts responding to this comment? Let me link that to you, for once. Though I tire of having to keep doing this in this thread.

Really? In all of France, out of all 67 million of you, there is not a single monarchist? You all think alike?

Is France a hivemind? I'm having a hard time taking you seriously.


And what understanding you would come to about the Reign of Terror?


Because you're approaching it from a point of ignorance. You have a razor-thin understanding of American history.

And who are these others? You seem to be quite alone in this thread.


Well, there's the problem right there. Anyone who doesn't enjoy apple pie is clearly not to be trusted.


They want to LARP as an elite?


They want liberty. Some want religious liberty. Others want personal liberty.


Name one.


Your identity is based upon your form of government? That seems rather thin.


Does France not have a definition beyond its Constitution? Would you take pride in being French if the French state ceased to exist? Do you have any sense of culture or identity beyond "the Republic"?


Spicy.


My understanding of them is that they are an expression of the values of America's founding. The values that bind us together and that we strive to achieve.


Knock yourself out. Makes no difference to me.


So, again, you have no sense of identity beyond the state. You believe that your heritage is inherently tied to the state. How sad.


You said France expanded. Into whose land did it expand and to what specific pieces of land are you referring to? Brittany? Normandy? What land?

It seemed as though you were referencing France's colonization of Africa.


Nations can exist before a state. You, however, seem to take more pride in the state than the nation. And you have no sense of pride or belonging beyond the state.

You still haven't given your definition of a nation. Still waiting. And it seems I'll be waiting for a while because of all the three languages you allegedly speak you don't know what a nation is in any of them.


Why thank you.


And where did you go? To whom did you speak? What did you see?


You don't need an official language you have most of your people speak a certain language. Jesus Christ. If French stopped being your official language would you all start speaking German?


You can pretend most of us don't speak English. That won't make it true.


I said you have an elitist attitude. I never said you were elite.

Funny, I thought a man of the French Revolution would reject ideas of elitism.


Still waiting on you to explain what you think a nation is.

I can see from your redundant questions that you have not actually read any of my other posts on this very thread. If you are actually interested in knowing more about the topic, beyond plain self-affirmation, you are welcome to go over my posts and find your answers therein.

In addition, there are indeed individual, mostly old, mostly inbred royalists in France. They have no political faction to speak of, nor a group. They are irrelevant. I, again, never claimed that 100% of everyone must be the same, nor that the outcomes of history must be analyzed the same. But the crushing majority of your people, of your political factions, need to understand history the same. Which America does not.

And in France, we value earned elitism. That is what separates us from other countries of hereditary, unearned privileges, such as the monarchy to our north and the political dynasties to our west.

How is the UK not a nation when it has the oldest type of government in Europe.
Even in terms of language 92% of Brits speak English as a first language whilst only 87% of french people do.

Because a significant part of its population (45% of Scotland, maybe more now, depending on the results of a future referendum) doesn't want to be there.

What the British nation was, what could hold England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland together is no more. The British themselves will tell you that.

In addition, the languages spoken in France other than French are immigrant languages. Arabic, Portuguese, Spanish, and Italian. Not languages native to France. And those numbers, from an EU survey in 2007 asked what the speakers' mother tongue was. Not what language they spoke in France.
I need not bring up our problems with making the speakers of the first language identify as French again, you of all people should know about that.

Your monarchist French friend is sad. Monarchists in France today are so... tragic.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Not all French people are in France :\

Not all ethnic French are in France. But France is the nation of the French. The ethnic French are not necessarily of the French nation, and members of the French nation need not be ethnic French. Again, look up what a nation is. The Québecois are ethnically French, but not a part of the French nation; the overseas regions of France are not ethnically French, but are a part of the French nation.

Sounds exactly like a country senpai.

[Olerand]

Not all ethnic French are in France. But France is the nation of the French. The ethnic French are not necessarily of the French nation, and members of the French nation need not be ethnic French. Again, look up what a nation is. The Québecois are ethnically French, but not a part of the French nation; the overseas regions of France are not ethnically French, but are a part of the French nation.

Sounds exactly like a country senpai.

You insist on not learning what a nation and a country are, and how they are separate. And you do that by cutting out the parts of my posts you do not wish to address, like the Kurdish situation.



You're welcome to actually learn what a nation is. I had no idea Anglo-Saxon countries don't teach the difference, but I'm not surprised. This actually makes a lot of sense.

[Nucego]

Diversity and multiculturalism are unfortunately too often misused by demagogues seeking to divide people into opposing camps and have opposing factions of native citizens and migrated citizens fight each other for its support to be even remotely viable in the simplified dichotomy of "for or against", "should we do it or not" or "good or bad"—the way it is too often presented in politics. "I'm for diversity" or "I'm against multiculturalism", "how can you be a multiculturalist" or "how can you be against diversity" etc.

Social disintegration through alienation of each side follows, then radicalization, then terrorism. I would rather not take a side on the matter in that case, because the discussion devolves into our benefit vs. their benefit, which religion is better, which culture is better, a whole slew of other questions related to the worseness of the other, each advocating the death of the other party, using women, homosexuals and so on as well as their treatment as reasons for one's own betterness and the other's worseness...

Then you have native and migrant extremists getting the voice of their own fraction of the people, which is the opposite of what you want. Then you have acts of terror by one side against the other which only gives more ammunition to the other side that they're martyrs fighting the good fight while the other is a bunch of evil fascist murderers. Then you see otherwise silent and content people picking sides and joining in contributing to further social division... I could go on.

This bothers me a lot and it bothers me more that I can't think of a solution to this at all.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Sounds exactly like a country senpai.

You insist on not learning what a nation and a country are, and how they are separate.

You refuse to acknowledge that they're the same, like how an anarchist refuses to acknowledge their ideal society is still a state. :^)

And you do that by cutting out the parts of my posts you do not wish to address, like the Kurdish situation.

I did not wish to address them, you see.

You're welcome to actually learn what a nation is. I had no idea Anglo-Saxon countries don't teach the difference, but I'm not surprised. This actually makes a lot of sense.

Anglo-saxons don't make a point out of making meaningless distinctions evidently.

[Olerand]

You insist on not learning what a nation and a country are, and how they are separate.

You refuse to acknowledge that they're the same, like how an anarchist refuses to acknowledge their ideal society is still a state. :^)

And you do that by cutting out the parts of my posts you do not wish to address, like the Kurdish situation.

I did not wish to address them, you see.

You're welcome to actually learn what a nation is. I had no idea Anglo-Saxon countries don't teach the difference, but I'm not surprised. This actually makes a lot of sense.

Anglo-saxons don't make a point out of making meaningless distinctions evidently.

You refuse to learn the basics of political science and sociology. I don't need to take anyone's word on this matter, especially when it is contrary to established academia.

I was not under the impression otherwise.

Many (but not all) Anglo-Saxons don't bother to actually learn the basics of the topics they are discussing. I knew that already, abundantly, as my previous posts have shown, I am more than accustomed with this attitude. I was simply surprised to know that the educational system did not teach this difference. Well, not really surprised honestly, I should have expected as much.

[Kramanica]

Thats a excellent definition

That's a country. No wonder this topic has been turning around and around for so long. Do Anglo-Saxon schools even teach the difference between a country and a nation? Maybe that's why I keep getting accosted on these frivolous grounds.

Let me ask this, are the Kurds a nation?

All right, your ignorance is showing. Since you can't be bothered to answer simple questions (which is why I abandoned this debate) I will simply settle it. This is a nation.

b : a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and governmentCanada is a nation with a written constitution —B. K. Sandwell

c : a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent statusa nation of vast size with a small population —Mary K. Hammond

Congratulations, America is a nation.

Now go be ignorant somewhere else.

[Olerand]

That's a country. No wonder this topic has been turning around and around for so long. Do Anglo-Saxon schools even teach the difference between a country and a nation? Maybe that's why I keep getting accosted on these frivolous grounds.

Let me ask this, are the Kurds a nation?

All right, your ignorance is showing. Since you can't be bothered to answer simple questions (which is why I abandoned this debate) I will simply settle it. This is a nation.

b : a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and governmentCanada is a nation with a written constitution —B. K. Sandwell

c : a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent statusa nation of vast size with a small population —Mary K. Hammond

Congratulations, America is a nation.

Now go be ignorant somewhere else.

No, it's not though.

Again, since we like the most basic definitions here (and this is from Wikipedia, yikes):

A nation is a stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, ethnicity or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. A nation is distinct from a people,[1] and is more abstract, and more overtly political than an ethnic group.[2] It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity, and particular interests.[3]

Black's Law Dictionary defines a nation as:

A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty.[1]

Ernest Renan's What is a Nation? (1882) declares that "race is confused with nation and a sovereignty analogous to that of really existing peoples is attributed to ethnographic or, rather linguistic groups", and "The truth is that there is no pure race and that to make politics depend upon ethnographic analysis is to surrender it to a chimera", echoing a sentiment of civic nationalism. He also claims that a nation is not formed on the basis of dynasty, language, religion, geography, or shared interests. Rather, "A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which in truth are but one, constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One lies in the past, one in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present-day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form", emphasizing the democratic and historical aspects of what constitutes a nation, although, "Forgetting, I would even go so far as to say historical error, is a crucial factor in the creation of a nation". "A nation is therefore a large-scale solidarity", which he said is reaffirmed in a "daily plebiscite".[4]

The nation has been described by Benedict Anderson as an "imagined community"[5] and by Paul James as an "abstract community".[6] It is an imagined community in the sense that the material conditions exist for imagining extended and shared connections. It is an abstract community in the sense that it is objectively impersonal, even if each individual in the nation experiences him or herself as subjectively part of an embodied unity with others. For the most part, members of a nation remain strangers to each other and will never likely meet.[7] Hence the phrase, "a nation of strangers" used by such writers as Vance Packard.

Ernest Renan was of course French.

[Kramanica]

All right, your ignorance is showing. Since you can't be bothered to answer simple questions (which is why I abandoned this debate) I will simply settle it. This is a nation.

Congratulations, America is a nation.

Now go be ignorant somewhere else.

No, it's not though.

Again, since we like the most basic definitions here (and this is from Wikipedia, yikes):

A nation is a stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, ethnicity or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. A nation is distinct from a people,[1] and is more abstract, and more overtly political than an ethnic group.[2] It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity, and particular interests.[3]

Black's Law Dictionary defines a nation as:

A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty.[1]

Ernest Renan's What is a Nation? (1882) declares that "race is confused with nation and a sovereignty analogous to that of really existing peoples is attributed to ethnographic or, rather linguistic groups", and "The truth is that there is no pure race and that to make politics depend upon ethnographic analysis is to surrender it to a chimera", echoing a sentiment of civic nationalism. He also claims that a nation is not formed on the basis of dynasty, language, religion, geography, or shared interests. Rather, "A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which in truth are but one, constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One lies in the past, one in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present-day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form", emphasizing the democratic and historical aspects of what constitutes a nation, although, "Forgetting, I would even go so far as to say historical error, is a crucial factor in the creation of a nation". "A nation is therefore a large-scale solidarity", which he said is reaffirmed in a "daily plebiscite".[4]

The nation has been described by Benedict Anderson as an "imagined community"[5] and by Paul James as an "abstract community".[6] It is an imagined community in the sense that the material conditions exist for imagining extended and shared connections. It is an abstract community in the sense that it is objectively impersonal, even if each individual in the nation experiences him or herself as subjectively part of an embodied unity with others. For the most part, members of a nation remain strangers to each other and will never likely meet.[7] Hence the phrase, "a nation of strangers" used by such writers as Vance Packard.

Ernest Renan was of course French.

A nation is a stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, ethnicity or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. 

Well, whaddaya know, we have a common language and territory and economic life and culture.

Even by your Wikipedia definition America is a nation lmao.

You're just embarrassing yourself by this point.

[Olerand]

No, it's not though.

Again, since we like the most basic definitions here (and this is from Wikipedia, yikes):



Ernest Renan was of course French.

A nation is a stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, ethnicity or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. 

Well, whaddaya know, we have a common language and territory and economic life and culture.

Even by your Wikipedia definition America is a nation lmao.

You're just embarrassing yourself by this point.

Out of all of that, you got that? I would suggest you read Renan's work, the linchpin of the understanding of the modern nation, titled, What is a Nation?

But I know you are not interested in actually reading books on the topic.


Not even to mention that you continue to deny that English is not the language of America, nor that you do manifest a common psychology nor a common culture. Because apparently the American South is... over the civil war, and the Southern Strategy was... something unknown to America, born out of... anything but resentment and a different understanding of what the American Nation is supposed to be.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

You refuse to acknowledge that they're the same, like how an anarchist refuses to acknowledge their ideal society is still a state. :^)

I did not wish to address them, you see.

Anglo-saxons don't make a point out of making meaningless distinctions evidently.

You refuse to learn the basics of political science and sociology. I don't need to take anyone's word on this matter, especially when it is contrary to established academia.

I don't think I should take the word of a socialist on what is established academia.

Many (but not all) Anglo-Saxons don't bother to actually learn the basics of the topics they are discussing.

On the other hand, the French are the sole subject matter experts.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Well, whaddaya know, we have a common language and territory and economic life and culture.

Even by your Wikipedia definition America is a nation lmao.

You're just embarrassing yourself by this point.

Out of all of that, you got that? I would suggest you read Renan's work, the linchpin of the understanding of the modern nation, titled, What is a Nation?

But I know you are not interested in actually reading books on the topic.


Not even to mention that you continue to deny that English is not the language of America, nor that you manifest a common psychology nor a common culture.

Americans speak English so