# What is the purpose of a nation?



## maxiogee

macta123 asked if a single National language is good.

Before going there do we not need to decide 
a) if Nations are good for humanity
b) the purpose of Nations
- - b1) are Nations about to be superseded by Corporations?
c) is "what is good for a Nation" ever likely to be at odds with "what is good for humanity"?

I'd welcome comments (but not diatribes or polemics)

I'll kick off by saying that "Nationalism" has given the world a lot of its troubles. It tends to generate chauvinistic views of "others" as being less worthy, less deserving and less pleasant.

I think that the concept of Nation grew out of the amount of power one man or family could wield, and how far that power could be exerted. Very few nations have any logical boundaries, and were one to start afresh to define national boundaries I think many would disappear.
In answer to my secondary question, I would ask someone who knows if they might tell me how much of the India we know today grew from the East India Company - surely the first Multinational?

I also think that "what is good for a Nation" ought not be at odds with what is "good for humanity" but it often is as, due to our different (national) political outlooks, we strive to do best for ourselves. This is - in my opinion - only achievable in present world terms at the expense of other nations. For one to be 'up' another must be 'down'.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Tony,
To avoid lots of tail chasing, I suggest you offer a dictionary definition of two words:

nation
country

and then tell us which you are referring to.  I see signs of both in your opening post.


----------



## cuchuflete

The Hudson's Bay Company was, "the oldest joint-stock trading company in the English world. It was chartered in 1670 and given exclusive trading rights in Hudson's Bay area", and although the East India Company got started around 1600, it's not clear which was more of a 'multinational'.

I'll let the British argue the point, if they so choose.  



 Is WordReference a multinational?


----------



## maxiogee

*Nation: *
(A) a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.
(B) a body of people marked off by common descent, language, culture or historical tradition whether or not bound by the defined territorial limits of a state.
(C) an aggregation of people or peoples of one or more cultures, races etc. organised into a single state.
*
Country:* 
(A) a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.
(B) a state.
(C) an area of land distinguished by its political autonomy

I would propose that we use the *(B)* definition of each as that best separates  "nation" from "country" (although I see them as synonymous).

From 
(A) The Oxford American Dictionaries widget on my Macintosh computer
(B) The Chambers English Dictionary
(C) Collins English Dictionary


----------



## danzomicrobo

I think that human beings are social animals and divide into groups so readily that it can be judged a product of human evolution.

A nation is just a social grouping in a competitive world.  I think that you could replace nation with any other social grouping and ask the same question.  

I don't think that nations are any worse for humanity than any other social grouping - religion, race, class, etc.

Nations just happen to be the actors currently on the stage.


----------



## Fernando

To answer your words:

a) No, I do not think that nations are good for Humanity. Nations mean selfishness and hate to the neighbour. They have produced 90% of the 20th century wars (200 m deaths maybe). In my perfect world nations certainly, do not exist.

On the positive side, they suppose a solidarity community more greater than the polis or the family, and thay are the way to do greater things than a person can do.

b) Ditto.

b1) No, States are necessary and I see corporations (considered as a quasi-government) as a sadder organization method than states. Corporations are perfect for their purpose.

c) No.


----------



## natasha2000

maxiogee said:
			
		

> macta123 asked if a single National language is good.
> 
> Before going there do we not need to decide
> a) if Nations are good for humanity
> b) the purpose of Nations
> - - b1) are Nations about to be superseded by Corporations?
> c) is "what is good for a Nation" ever likely to be at odds with "what is good for humanity"?


 
I think it is good to have nations, since it implies diversity, and diversity is fun, imagine if we all were the same... It woud be a little bit boring. 
What is not good is shovinism that arises too many times in this world from the feeling of belonging to a nation, as you have already said. When a human learns that it is good to love what is yours, but it does not implies that the other that is different is necessarily better or worse than you, that they are just... different, and that's all.
I see the purpose of nations in the necessity of a man(human) to belong somewhere. The one who feels that does not belong anywhere is usually deeply unhappy. Someone will say they belong to some nation (whether is a country or a part of some country: eg. Spain, Catalonian or Bask), someone will say they belong to some continent (European, or American, or African), and others will say they belong to the world... Whatever is the choice, a person does belong somewhere. Its something that we as humans have in blood, since no man can live alone, since we are gregarious (?)beings, as almost wolves of dogs, we live in "herds" or "packs", and not alone.
I for sure wouldn't say that nations should be changed for corporations, since the word corporation to me(!) implies "the power of money" and I honestly don't like the sound of it.

What is good for a nation? What is good for humanity? To be open minded, to love what is yours, but not to look down on what is different from yours, and to understand that the others are not neither better nor worse only because they are different from you.
I realize that what I am saying can also be qualified as an uthopia, but, well... I would really like to be able to think that this little "uthopia" is possible. Bur this world have seen so  many injustice, done in the name of things or something that didn't even asked for it, like so many atrocities in the name of defense of the nation, of God, of peace, of security etc... That at the end, as I said, I wish I could believe in the "uthopia" I have described, but I cannot...

Natons are good for humanity, but the human is a little bit wierd being who always manages to twist even the most beautiful things in the world and make a horror of it.


----------



## cuchuflete

In general, I agree with Fernando.  States are useful mechanisms.  Nations just allow us to act tribally...against those outside rather than for anything.


----------



## Fernando

On a side note, I suppose the first multi-national were the sumerians traders. if not, assyrians had trading posts far away from Assyria. The Indian East Company was maybe (and I can think of four or five additional examples) the first and bigger multinational in the industrial world.


----------



## ireney

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Before going there do we not need to decide
> a) if Nations are good for humanity
> b) the purpose of Nations
> - - b1) are Nations about to be superseded by Corporations?
> c) is "what is good for a Nation" ever likely to be at odds with "what is good for humanity"?


 
a) I'd have to go with "bad". You see, yes, people do need a sense of identification and such but I think that the "nation" notion is a -relatively- new 'invention' that hasn't helped humanity much. As for the definition well, I am currently thinking of cases such as that of the ancient Greeks. They did make a distinction between "Hellenes" and "Barbarians" (non-Greek), they did feel that (whenever it suited them really) they should band against non-Hellenes but they wouldn't be able to really comprehend the modern concept of a nation.

b) The purpose has been as far as I understand history to make the differences between "Them" and "Us" more prominent and/or important.
b1) highly unlikely

c) Since it's a "Us" vs "Them" distinction, most certainly yes (especially if we take into account that people generally tend not to look far into the future)


----------



## eddington

An interesting example is Latin America. If we use the defintion B) given by Maxiogee:

(B) a body of people marked off by common descent, language, culture or historical tradition whether or not bound by the defined territorial limits of a state.

one could say that there is a latinamerican nation. Instead of that there is a multiplicity of states and within each state its citizens have been working hard at"inventing" nations. This nation-inventing process has been useful mainly for the oligarchies and foreign companies that have been the efective rulers of the varios countries. It represents now a formidable obstacle to a true economical and political union which could put the population of the region out of its prevailing lower standards of living.


----------



## natasha2000

eddington said:
			
		

> An interesting example is Latin America. If we use the defintion B) given by Maxiogee:
> 
> (B) a body of people marked off by common descent, language, culture or historical tradition whether or not bound by the defined territorial limits of a state.
> 
> one could say that there is a latinamerican nation. Instead of that there is a multiplicity of states and within each state its citizens have been working hard at"inventing" nations. This nation-inventing process has been useful mainly for the oligarchies and foreign companies that have been the efective rulers of the varios countries. It represents now a formidable obstacle to a true economical and political union which could put the population of the region out of its prevailing lower standards of living.


 
Very true. If I am not wrong, Simon Bolivar's dream was to make one single country, taking as an example the USA. Unfortunately, his dream never came true....


----------



## danielfranco

The author-physicist Stephen Baxter has gone to great lengths to ascribe the rise of nations in this world to the evolution of man as a social animal. Since the early humans were (apparently by necessity) highly nomadic, the earliest kind of nation was the extended-family links that formed a clan. I suppose that another early development was the concept of territoriality (if one found a nice cave for shelter, one tried to hold on to it).
This is a long-winded way to express my belief that this nationalistic impulse will be very, very difficult to root out of our collective psyche.
As to the question of its inherent "goodness", that really is a philosophical debate waiting to happen. I will take for granted that by "good" we mean "useful and not hurtful", and opine that the creation of states was probably the right step in trying to form a multi-cultural and multi-national society. However, of course, it all goes south as soon as those old "territoriality" and "exclusivity" impulses rear their ugly heads. They are so deeply seated in our evolution as humans that I think they will be some of the last things to go, before we can actually reach Utopia. My fervent hope is that they *will* be rooted out, of course.


----------



## eddington

From Daddyo:
*Las naciones son buenas porque nos ayudan a mantener nuestra identidad*,

 To keep our "identidad" as individuals is a positive thing. To keep our "identidad" as member of a group... I'm not sure it's such a  good thing. Nations, which are a kind of groups, try to preserve their "identidad" using the idea that they are better than other nations. The results, from what we read in history textbooks have been on the whole rather "malos".


----------



## natasha2000

eddington said:
			
		

> From Daddyo:
> *Las naciones son buenas porque nos ayudan a mantener nuestra identidad*,
> 
> To keep our "identidad" as individuals is a positive thing. To keep our "identidad" as member of a group... I'm not sure it's such a good thing. Nations, which are a kind of groups, try to preserve their "identidad" using the idea that they are better than other nations. The results, from what we read in history textbooks have been on the whole rather "malos".


 
Unfortunately, you are right... hope it changes one day.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

The purpose of a nation, like a religion, or a kingdom, or a fiefdom, or a tribe, is to control people.


----------



## qbit

The purpose of a nation is grouping all people with common elements of identity, (language, religion, race, common History), and is a psichological and social necessity of the human being.


----------



## moodywop

qbit said:
			
		

> The purpose of a nation is grouping all people with common elements of identity, (language, religion, *race*, common History), and is a psichological and social necessity of the human being.


 
Race?


----------



## Fernando

All concepts are doubtful, not only race. For an American I suppose that religion as a unifying concept is a bit strange, and partially the same can be said about language in Belgium, Switzerland, Ireland, Spain, etc.

The concept of nation is very ambigous. Many people can feel themselves a part of several nations and myself feel my hometown, the places where I have lived for long periods, as well as Spain and Europe and Hispanic Community and the Western World are in a way "my nations". The exclusivist concept "one man-one nation" (ein Reich, ein Führer, ein Volk?) is quite strange and need some kind of intellectual "construction".

I do not deny that nations are maybe a necessity of human being and, as said before, allows a greater world than "family" or "city" or "tribe" (quite more "natural" organization) but we do not need them to be exclusives.


----------



## moodywop

Fernando said:
			
		

> All concepts are doubtful, not only race


 
I couldn't agree more(just as I agree with everything else you wrote in your posts in this thread).

However the mention of "race" sent a chill down my spine.


----------



## maxiogee

Fernando said:
			
		

> All concepts are doubtful, not only race. For an American I suppose that religion as a unifying concept is a bit strange,



Tell that to the Israelis. Or any of the Sharia-law observing countries.




> and partially the same can be said about language in Belgium, Switzerland, Ireland, Spain, etc.



Maybe its language is all a nation has left of its identity, you could ask your "first nations" about that, I suppose. They lost just about everything else that they felt identified them.


----------



## Fernando

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Tell that to the Israelis. Or any of the Sharia-law observing countries.



The Israelis have a base in religion, right, though you do not need to be a Jew (neither racially, not religiously) to be a Israeli.

The Sharia observing countries are not based in religion. A Sudanese and an Egyptian observe Sharia (in the case of Egypt, partially) and they  are from different countries.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> Maybe its language is all a nation has left of its identity, you could ask your "first nations" about that, I suppose. They lost just about everything else that they felt identified them.



Irish have lost most of its language, but I do not feel an English-speaking Irish is less an Irsihman than a Gaelic-speaking one.


----------



## alpago

"peace in world, peace at home(in country)." this is my policy. i think we need nations, they are just like our names. just think that all of us have the same name.. wow.. what a caos..
But we must act as fingers of a hand. every single finger is different from the other one but they work together.. all the countries and all the nations must be as fingers.. we live in the same world..we must help each other(as nations) to protect very our world.. there is no need to be selfish..


----------



## eddington

Gbit said in #18:

"The purpose of a nation is grouping all people with common elements of identity, (language, religion, race, common History), and is a psichological and social necessity of the human being."

 I couldn't disagree more. If the purpose of a nation is to group all people with a common language, religion and race it would make some sense to talk of an  "Hispanic Nation" that would englobe people living in countries which speak Spanish, are mostly Catholics and are as racially mixed as anyone else in this side of the world. But practically no one speaks of a Hispanic Nation, instead there are as many nations as Spanish speaking countries. Why? The "why" brings me to the "common History" side of it. Historically we see in this example that first States were created and afterwards people started fabricating the "nations" that populated those States. If this were "a psicological and social necessity" why didn't we think about it before?

It is true that the history of Latin American countries is not the same as that of Spain. There is the history of the "conquistadores" and the "conquistados", which is not the same. What is very similar, in spite of what our teachers taught us in school, is the historia of the "conquistados". In school we are taught about "the glory of our Nation" and how much better we are than the neghbouring nations. Does it matter so much that we were "liberated" by General X instaed of General Y? In 1813 instead of 1816? What we are not tought usually at school is that in all our multiple nations most of the people changed simply from "conquistados" to "explotados", that was our "common history".


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Fernando said:
			
		

> The Israelis have a base in religion


I think the issue is more complicated than it appears on the surface. 

Christianity, Islam, and Judiasm are all religions. They are often grouped together as the three Abrahamic religions or the three great monotheistic religons. Right? So far so good. 

Can you say I'm a Christian but I don't believe in God or I'm a Muslim but I am an athiest? It would sound odd. Yet many Jews say just that. You don't have to be religious to be Jewish, you don't have to keep kosher, go to temple, pray, or do anything...if you are born a Jew, you're a Jew. If you become a Jew, you can't back out.

So even Jews who don't have a religion can be granted Israeli citizenship. So I wouldn't say Israel is a religious state, or that it was founded on religion, it's a Jewish state, the mordern state of Israel was founded as a place for Jews, in which there are non-Jewish minorities, like you so aptly pointed out.


----------



## Heba

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I think it is good to have nations, since it implies diversity, and diversity is fun, imagine if we all were the same... It woud be a little bit boring...
> What is not good is shovinism that arises too many times in this world from the feeling of belonging to a nation, as you have already said. I see the purpose of nations in the necessity of a man(human) to belong somewhere...
> What is good for a nation? What is good for humanity? To be open minded, to love what is yours, but not to look down on what is different from yours, and to understand that the others are not neither better nor worse only because they are different from you.


 
Cannot agree more.
I do believe that the concept of nation has arised from the fact that human beings constantly love to make classifications. Even within the same nation, people think of other classifications to make and smaller groups to belong to. Perhaps belonging to a smaller group of people makes us feel secure and satisfies our need for an identity.


----------

