What Is a Nation?

[Ethereal]

To me, in it's simplest form, is a legal entity. We the people of the United States have joined together collectively to for this great nation -- the legal state of the United States of America. It's boundaries are defined and marked. It's sovereignty is defined and marked. It's citizenship (or membership) is defined by our contractual documents (the Constitution) and marked. We (the legal entity of the United States) enters contracts with other nations and other entities.

We are more than a nation -- we are a people, a culture, a country and many more things; yet, in its simplest form -- we are a legal entity.

What's a "legal entity"? How did it come into being? And from where does it derive its legitimacy?

[Chris]

To me, in it's simplest form, is a legal entity. We the people of the United States have joined together collectively to for this great nation -- the legal state of the United States of America. It's boundaries are defined and marked. It's sovereignty is defined and marked. It's citizenship (or membership) is defined by our contractual documents (the Constitution) and marked. We (the legal entity of the United States) enters contracts with other nations and other entities.

We are more than a nation -- we are a people, a culture, a country and many more things; yet, in its simplest form -- we are a legal entity.

Yes, both, but nation as legal entity is to chicken as nation as people is to egg.

[decedent]

Well I'm not trying to ascertain the "sovereign citizen" conception of a nation. I'm trying to get the opinions of the forum membership.

I'm just saying that nobody's going to agree on this issue. The US has been particularly funny on this issue.... even before the war for independence. Just look at all the extremist groups today -- some whose roots go back hundreds of years -- and their different ideas of what a nation is and what it should be. Look at all the people saying "Go live in Russia if you hate America so much," which trivializes citizenship. Look at all the people saying that and armed populace is necessary to maintain a nation, which suggests that a nation's success is impossible without arms. Look at the two ways we tried to take Texas (with force then with money), which shows different methods of expansion with their own ethical issues.


In the 19th century, the SCOTUS ruled that the Texas succession was illegal. One could argue that a nation isn't really a nation, at least in spirit, if its states want to separate.


The Constitution says that indigenous people are independent but not truly sovereign, but the federal government recognizes them as "domestic dependent nations." If a nation can be within a nation, it seems that nationality is more of an abstract concept than a salient object.

[DGUtley]

What's a "legal entity"? How did it come into being? And from where does it derive its legitimacy?

A legal entity is one that is formed under the institutions and laws that existed at the time. Once countries started recognizing the US, such as when France recognized the U.S., the traditions and 'international law' at the time gave birth to the existence of the international 'nation' of the United States -- and we were off. It has been a long time since college, but I think that our existence was in doubt through the war of 1812?

Yes, both, but nation as legal entity is to chicken as nation as people is to egg.

Kind of. We declared ourselves but it meant nothing, I suppose, until we won our sovereignty and someone recognized us as a nation?

[Ethereal]

I'm just saying that nobody's going to agree on this issue. The US has been particularly funny on this issue.... even before the war for independence. Just look at all the extremist groups today -- some whose roots go back hundreds of years -- and their different ideas of what a nation is and what it should be. Look at all the people saying "Go live in Russia if you hate America so much," which trivializes citizenship. Look at all the people saying that and armed populace is necessary to maintain a nation, which suggests that a nation's success is impossible without arms. Look at the two ways we tried to take Texas (with force then with money), which shows different methods of expansion with their own ethical issues.


In the 19th century, the SCOTUS ruled that the Texas succession was illegal. One could argue that a nation isn't really a nation, at least in spirit, if its states want to separate.


The Constitution says that indigenous people are independent but not truly sovereign, but the federal government recognizes them as "domestic dependent nations." If a nation can be within a nation, it seems that nationality is more of an abstract concept than a salient object.

Indeed, it is abstract. That's the most fundamental premise upon which the concept of a nation rests, is its abstract nature. It does not exist in a tangible sense, but rather as an idea in the minds of individuals. So then we must ask ourselves how this idea comes into being and from where it derives its legitimacy.

[Ethereal]

A legal entity is one that is formed under the institutions and laws that existed at the time. Once countries started recognizing the US, such as when France recognized the U.S., the traditions and 'international law' at the time gave birth to the existence of the international 'nation' of the United States -- and we were off. It has been a long time since college, but I think that our existence was in doubt through the war of 1812?

Doesn't that strike you as a bit circular? After all, institutions and laws are often themselves the products of nations. So how could a product give rise to its antecedent? Moreover, France is just another nation, so how did that come into being? Eventually, we'll have to arrive at some proto-nation that gave rise to all other nations, but what gave rise to that nation?

[Chris]

...


Kind of. We declared ourselves but it meant nothing, I suppose, until we won our sovereignty and someone recognized us as a nation?

That was the political theory at the time, that the people were sovereign and could create their own legal nation.

[DGUtley]

Doesn't that strike you as a bit circular? After all, institutions and laws are often themselves the products of nations. So how could a product give rise to its antecedent? Moreover, France is just another nation, so how did that come into being? Eventually, we'll have to arrive at some proto-nation that gave rise to all other nations, but what gave rise to that nation?

I don't think so. There was an international construct at the time. Read your History on how civilization evolved.

[Green Arrow]

I define a nation, to use Global Policy Forum, as "a large group of people with strong bonds of identity - an 'imagined community,' a tribe on a grand scale." A nation need not have a state​ to exist. Case in point, the Palestinians and Kurds are nations without a state.

[Ethereal]

I don't think so. There was an international construct at the time. Read your History on how civilization evolved.

I'm well aware of the history behind the emergence and evolution of civilization. I'm asking you how something can give rise to its antecedent and I'm asking you how nations can given rise to other nations without having to resort to some proto-nation that spawned all other nations.