It seems a pretty big omission in a discussion of the US and nationhood to not mention the concept of civic nationalism, as the US is often considered the main example of civic nationalism. If a nation is an imagined community based on a myth of commonality, that myth doesn't have to be based on just biological natality (that's the etymology of "nation", but it's never been the whole meaning - definitions of nations have always appealed to a common heritage and tradition that is broader than just ancestry). The common myth can be one of values or a shared non-biological origin; indeed the belief that most Americans are descended from immigrants is an important part of the national mythology of the US. This is civic nationalism (and the idea of a nation as necessarily about common descent is, by contrast, referred to as "ethnic nationalism").
A short summary, because most of the comments are disagreeing based on what they <i>feel</i> a nation is, rather than the academic definition the OP discusses.<p>- A nation is a group of people that agree they have a common ancestral origin (note that this may be factually untrue!).<p>- A nation-state is a state that is dominated population-and government-wise by a nation (~75% of people in Germany are of the German nation).<p>- The US fails both prongs: Americans don’t agree on their common ancestral origins, and the US is not dominated by a single nation.<p>- The US instead is built on citizenship. Americans will not fight for their “nation” as defined above, but they will see bones and countries broken for their fellow citizens.<p>- Finally, precisely because of the nature of the US, being a US citizen means at some point someone in one’s ancestry <i>broke with</i> (or was broken from) their nation, if they had one.<p>As a naturalized citizen, that very much maps to my experience.
I mean, the blog is entitled "A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry", which is exactly what this article is.<p>Yes, a "nation" may be defined as group with common origin, but the word is used synonymously with "state" nowadays. So while the US may not be a "state" with the same "national" origins as others, it's still on equal footing with states who derive their identify from ancestral origin.<p>At any rate, a better country to explore might be Singapore. Having spent some time there, that is truly a "state" looking for "nationhood". It was a British colony for a while, populated by a mix of Chinese, Malay, Indians and Westerners. It briefly joined Malaysia, but then was kicked out.<p>It's amazing the <i>effort</i> the government puts in to nurture a sense of national identity, it most certainly didn't come naturally - one could argue Singapore had the most stacked against it - a mix of ethnicities, many who strongly identified with their homeland, a history of a trading port with a transient population, and no heroic story of independence, rather an independence forced on it.<p>Government programs like HDB (home ownership), national service and racial policies to prevent balkanization have gone pretty far in creating a Singaporean identity. But I get the sense the govt feels it could go the other way just as easily if allowed to wilt.
Given the argument here around nation and state and what it means, he also is in the middle of a series on what made Rome Rome and the definition of Roman. - <a href="https://acoup.blog/2021/06/11/collections-the-queens-latin-or-who-were-the-romans-part-i-beginnings-and-legends/" rel="nofollow">https://acoup.blog/2021/06/11/collections-the-queens-latin-o...</a><p>The ACOUP blog is frequently posted to HN, and after a previous post I started subscribing and being a patreon supporter.<p>So, vote of support here for Bret and his content.<p>His content is pretty wide ranging, thoroughly researched and documented, and incredibly accessible.<p>I find it to be an ideal anti-Medium, and fits what I love - long-form articles by experts in their field.<p>Given the HN crowd some of his other articles focus on the accuracy of various games, TV series etc as well - probably worth a look through his back-catalog.
Does the article ever explain why it matters whether the US is a “nation”? What is the significance of distinguishing between whether it is a nation or a hegemony? Does that have some obscure implications that requires a word-salad article to lay it out for everyone?<p>From the definition of nation, it would seem that when George Washington said it, it would be accurate but the author disagrees. Currently, one could argue that the backgrounds and birthplaces of many citizens of the US vary so much that it is not a nation. Why does it matter?
I've heard the US being catalogued as a 'state-nation', which always sounded appropriate since the main locus of identification is the state and its laws rather any nation.
A though video about how recent the idea of the "nation-state" is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8rL9vgsT6g" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8rL9vgsT6g</a><p>It is not about the USA, but about the "nation-state" concept, how it evolved and what it may be its future.
tldr: it's not a nation because most of the population migrated to it rather than "naturally" born in it. Of course this is a dumb and arbitrary definition because everywhere where humans live they have migrated to it. The author touches on this as well.
There is something amiss in calling the US a nation. Maybe it's the absence of historical epics, the lack of a uniting identity thru the ages, the lack of mythical gods.
Comparing against nations like India and China, USA seems to be without a soul.
Incorrect. The United States <i>was</i> a nation, until recently, very recently.<p>There was a time when boys in Normandy left their guts out on the beaches there, so <i>other Americans</i> could live in peace. They were not dying for a geographic area.<p>What makes a nation is the belief in personal sacrifice for public good.<p>Look at us now. A pandemic of toxic individualism, a place where public service is no longer a virtue and is being openly villainized instead. "You are part of the Deep State, aren't you, boy, infringing on ma' freedoms, yeah?"<p>To be fair, this is NOT a US problem. The Western world seems to be rapidly devolving, quickly jettisoning values and social norms that are not only characteristic of a country, nation (whatever), but a <i>civilization</i>.<p>Not to mention the concept of democracy, which is probably not going to survive this decade here. A place where half the population lives in an alternate reality cannot last. A place where working for the government is not "public service", but a grifting operation, and anything higher up there is just a vestibule, a waiting area on a plumpy gig for a cartel you helped enrich by screwing over the citizens.<p>We are neither a nation, nor a country.