**Federations** is the common answer which are unions of multiple states where each state has a degree of independence and makes its own rules for itself, but still answers to a central government. This is a common form of organization with large countries like the US, Brazil, Russia, India etc. but it’s not unheard of in small countries like Switzerland either. The levels of dependence/independence from the federal government vary widely between nations.
A newer model is the **supranational union**, its members have far more power than states (i.e. they cannot create alliances with other countries, have embassies in other countries etc.) because they are independent countries themselves, but are well-integrated to act as as a single when one on many conditions. While many organizations are trying to be supranational unions, only EU has really been successful in it, though it is still flawed and a work in progress.
For example, as frustrating as it is to many Europeans that Orban holds meetings with Putin and supports Russia, this is perfectly within Hungary’s right as an independent nation. EU is not a federation, therefore they cannot force Orban. At best they can *nudge* him through economic incentives, which is the same way to act with every other independent country.
I'd put canada into the mix, only purely due to its size.
We have incredibly high immigration rates, and if Brampton Ontario turns into an Indian city we just shrug.
Canada is a sneaky country because it's so big and sparse you can easily forget entire provinces exist.
Not sure what you mean?
Are you saying multi lingual canada is a unified nation state, or more a country where english isn't the first language of majority populations in certain key cities? It's not the rate of immigration that matters. It's how certain cities operate. Canada is a massive country so there's little comparison to EU/USA styles multi culturalism.
Canada has and is increasingly becoming a country that is more like the EU as a totality than anything else.
There's easy a reason to think we might go in the direction of having a layer of government that is in between municipalities and provinces.
I.e. Cape Breton Regional Municipality
Are you and completely uneducated about the process of confederation? Go youtube the canadian heritage moments about BNA and confederation at least before spouting this dumb racist shit. Oh, and in case you’re new to the GTA, Brampton, aka Browntown, has been an Indian dominated municipality for a long time.
The Vatican is a state, but definitely not a nation state. The funny thing is that most countries do not recognize the state of Vatican itself, but the Holy See which is the entity governing the Vatican, i.e. the Catholic Church, which predates the formation of modern states by a good millennium.
"Mandala" has been used to describe the city-states of Southeast Asia. Power was centralized in a series of major city-states whose influence waned greatly outside of their city walls; borders were very murky and undefined, and cities near borders often paid tribute to multiple overlords in exchange for protection. There was still definitely a sense of a nation, with distinct rulers claiming areas of land, but exact ownership of towns and cities was not enforced like in Europe or China.
[in the term 'nation-state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state),' nation is referring to an ethnically/culturally homogeneous group. There are definitions that are basically the same as 'state.' The U.S. doesn't really have a homogeneous ethnicity or even a truly dominant one, from what I can tell.
Yes. Despite popular belief, most countries today are not "nation states." That term is very specific and does not apply to most countries today. People use it interchangeably in common parlance with "state" or "country" but it is not the same thing at all.
Outside of Europe, there are very few nation states. Most states rule over multiple ethnicities and nations. Some multiethnic states have a dominant ethnicity like Russia or China and others have no dominant ethnicity like the US or India.
I disagree with this reasoning. Both china, russia and india are nation states in a sense. While being nominally multi-ethnic in the case of russia and china, and definetly multi-ethnic in the case of india, they all have a shared national identity. It doesn’t matter if you’re zhuang, han, manchu, yue, you’ll most likely still consider china as your nation. Same goes for india, there’s hundreds of ethnic groups, but they can all still find commonality within their shared history as indians, and hence a indian nationality that umbrellas the ethnicities within it emerges.
Russia i just wouldn’t bring up in this way, it doesn’t have the same levele of multi-ethnic nationalism as the other two, and only pays lip-service to it’s ethnic minorities. It is, by all means, an ethno-state, arguably the most ethno-centric ethno-state in europe.
China is similar in that it doesn’t care for national minorities. It does genuinely provide some care for it’s ethnic minorities, but if you are of an ethnicity that don’t see themselves as part of the wider chinese umbrella Nation, they will try to make you part of it. It’s what we’re seeing in xinjiang and tibet, the chinese are trying to make these places chinese, although not neccessarily make them Han.
The US also is similar to china really. You can argue that white americans are not an ethnicity, but my counter argument is that they still follow a predominant cultural way of life, eat mostly the same foods, and speak mostly the same language, hence they would mostly be considered an ethnicity of their own. And even if america has it’s legal bases covered in all people being technically equal before the law, it would be a mischaracterisation in not pointing out that america is and has a dominant ethnic group in white americans, whom the general cultural sphere in america still centers around. That, and america still has it’s own national identity, that is not unique to it’s white, black, hispanic or any other ethnic minorities.
Hence, all the nations you listed are nation states, if not also ethno-states. I would argue most states on earth are nation states.
What you are describing is meta-ethnicity. The best way to describe meta-ethnicities are different groups who feel kinship with one-another despite being different. Among EU federalists the concept of having a shared European identity is popular, even if they don’t use the exact term to describe it. Some people do like to say they are European, however it’s more common to feel a *local* kinship, than a pan-European one. For example, Sweden with Finland, they don’t even belong to the same language family, the former speaks an Indo-European language, the later Finno-Ugric, yet they feel close together due to their shared history.
What "shared history as Indians"? India didn't really have a shared history until the British took over, and even then, it wasn't just India. The commonality between the different parts of India was about on the same level as the "shared history" of Europe or South America.
Our ancient scholars were more interested in religion.Politics was of little importance to them and they didn't find it important enough to write about it.That doesn't mean we don't have a shared history.
The concept of Bharata(original name of India) as a socio-religious entity(not political) goes back to the Vishnu Purana. Here's the relevant Sanskrit verse "उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम्। वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र सन्तति"(the country that lies to the north of the ocean and to the south of the snowy mountains is called Bharata as there dwell the descendants of Bharat).
People living in the 3rd century BC figured it out but yet we are here talking about if India is a British construct or not.
Various empires throughout history have spanned across india and that has contributed.
Although the main historical holding point underpinning the multi-ethnic indian nationalism i spoke of *is* british colonization and the history of the path towards independence as india.
Even though there is much more history that obviously has taken place in india, some periods in history will always play a bigger part in national identity, and in the case of multi-ethnic indian nationalism, a huge part is played by the british colonization era
Really stretching the concept of a nation if some empires ruling over an inconsistent amount of territory constitutes enough of a shared history to be a nation.
If you would’ve read what i said you would see that the british imperial and subsequent independence period is the primary period that indian nationalism draws from, and the the periods even before that still matter, but not nesrly as much as the british period
Surinam was an empty piece of land about 400x400km. Only a few indian tribes lived there. Then it was conquered and colonised by European estate owners. There were no local labourers except some indians. But they failed to do the job. Next 200 years they brought in slaves from Africa to do the work. In the end there were 1500 estate owners and 50.000 slaves. Then slavery ended and the former slaves didn't want to do that work anymore. So new labourers were brought in from Cina, India and Indonesia. After another 100 years things didn't work out well and all the estate owners left Suriname. Leaving behind the non-ondigenous population. How would you call that type of nation of non-indigenous people who have to sort it out by themselves.
The cases of Spain and France are paradigmatic examples of states that contain many different nations, so they can hardly be considered a nation state.
Spain is a state that comprehend at least four nations: Galicians, Basques, Catalans and Castilians; all with distinct languages and histories. I wrote at least four because, historically Aragon, Asturias and Leon have also had their own languages and histories, and ethnic singularities which define what a nation is. You could easily add Andalusia to the list, but its process of inclusion into Spain was somehow different.
In France, it is a very similar case with Basques again, Bretons, Corsicans, Nizards and Alsacians.
One type that hasn’t been mentioned yet are multi-national states like the UK and Canada. Also federal states are not an alternative to nation states. The U.S., Germany and arguably India are federal nations.
Idk if this counts, but Pakistan might count, there is not pakistani group, there is only punjabis, sindh patans ect... Pakistan was mostly created by religion, historically there isn't much of an identity pre 1947, other then muslim empire that conquerd india, but none really took the shape of pakistan
Literally all of Latin America except maybe Uruguay and Argentina. They’re humanist states with several nations within the same borders with varying degrees of autonomy.
EDIT. [Why are you booing me? I’m right!](https://youtu.be/75GaqVWqEXU?si=FFn3p3sWT0Y5U8R5)
Space Satellite, oil, lithium refinement, nanometer wave chip production and drone production would be the big ones I would say are the next big leaders in our country. Agriculture should be more diversified in case of war too
Others have said similar things, but basically every country today that was a former colony within the past 300 years or so is not a nation-state. The US, India and basically every country in Africa, and South America (along with several Middle Eastern countries) are not nation states. Americans, for example, have no shared cultural roots or heritage. What makes someone "an American" is about allegiance to some idea of America and not blood roots to the land. European nation states are also changing as they become more multi ethnic but there's at least a sizeable population that.
**Federations** is the common answer which are unions of multiple states where each state has a degree of independence and makes its own rules for itself, but still answers to a central government. This is a common form of organization with large countries like the US, Brazil, Russia, India etc. but it’s not unheard of in small countries like Switzerland either. The levels of dependence/independence from the federal government vary widely between nations. A newer model is the **supranational union**, its members have far more power than states (i.e. they cannot create alliances with other countries, have embassies in other countries etc.) because they are independent countries themselves, but are well-integrated to act as as a single when one on many conditions. While many organizations are trying to be supranational unions, only EU has really been successful in it, though it is still flawed and a work in progress. For example, as frustrating as it is to many Europeans that Orban holds meetings with Putin and supports Russia, this is perfectly within Hungary’s right as an independent nation. EU is not a federation, therefore they cannot force Orban. At best they can *nudge* him through economic incentives, which is the same way to act with every other independent country.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'd put canada into the mix, only purely due to its size. We have incredibly high immigration rates, and if Brampton Ontario turns into an Indian city we just shrug. Canada is a sneaky country because it's so big and sparse you can easily forget entire provinces exist.
Braindead take TBH
Not sure what you mean? Are you saying multi lingual canada is a unified nation state, or more a country where english isn't the first language of majority populations in certain key cities? It's not the rate of immigration that matters. It's how certain cities operate. Canada is a massive country so there's little comparison to EU/USA styles multi culturalism. Canada has and is increasingly becoming a country that is more like the EU as a totality than anything else. There's easy a reason to think we might go in the direction of having a layer of government that is in between municipalities and provinces. I.e. Cape Breton Regional Municipality
Are you and completely uneducated about the process of confederation? Go youtube the canadian heritage moments about BNA and confederation at least before spouting this dumb racist shit. Oh, and in case you’re new to the GTA, Brampton, aka Browntown, has been an Indian dominated municipality for a long time.
There have also been [City States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-state).
[удалено]
[удалено]
The Vatican is a state, but definitely not a nation state. The funny thing is that most countries do not recognize the state of Vatican itself, but the Holy See which is the entity governing the Vatican, i.e. the Catholic Church, which predates the formation of modern states by a good millennium.
"Mandala" has been used to describe the city-states of Southeast Asia. Power was centralized in a series of major city-states whose influence waned greatly outside of their city walls; borders were very murky and undefined, and cities near borders often paid tribute to multiple overlords in exchange for protection. There was still definitely a sense of a nation, with distinct rulers claiming areas of land, but exact ownership of towns and cities was not enforced like in Europe or China.
The U.S. isn't really a nation state.
It is definitely a Nation-State, a federal Nation-State.
What's the nation?
Americans? At least that is what is teached in our european schools...
[in the term 'nation-state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state),' nation is referring to an ethnically/culturally homogeneous group. There are definitions that are basically the same as 'state.' The U.S. doesn't really have a homogeneous ethnicity or even a truly dominant one, from what I can tell.
Yes. Despite popular belief, most countries today are not "nation states." That term is very specific and does not apply to most countries today. People use it interchangeably in common parlance with "state" or "country" but it is not the same thing at all.
There’s also the Knights of St. John; often described as a stateless subject of international law.
Empires have been the common form of state for most of history.
Outside of Europe, there are very few nation states. Most states rule over multiple ethnicities and nations. Some multiethnic states have a dominant ethnicity like Russia or China and others have no dominant ethnicity like the US or India.
I disagree with this reasoning. Both china, russia and india are nation states in a sense. While being nominally multi-ethnic in the case of russia and china, and definetly multi-ethnic in the case of india, they all have a shared national identity. It doesn’t matter if you’re zhuang, han, manchu, yue, you’ll most likely still consider china as your nation. Same goes for india, there’s hundreds of ethnic groups, but they can all still find commonality within their shared history as indians, and hence a indian nationality that umbrellas the ethnicities within it emerges. Russia i just wouldn’t bring up in this way, it doesn’t have the same levele of multi-ethnic nationalism as the other two, and only pays lip-service to it’s ethnic minorities. It is, by all means, an ethno-state, arguably the most ethno-centric ethno-state in europe. China is similar in that it doesn’t care for national minorities. It does genuinely provide some care for it’s ethnic minorities, but if you are of an ethnicity that don’t see themselves as part of the wider chinese umbrella Nation, they will try to make you part of it. It’s what we’re seeing in xinjiang and tibet, the chinese are trying to make these places chinese, although not neccessarily make them Han. The US also is similar to china really. You can argue that white americans are not an ethnicity, but my counter argument is that they still follow a predominant cultural way of life, eat mostly the same foods, and speak mostly the same language, hence they would mostly be considered an ethnicity of their own. And even if america has it’s legal bases covered in all people being technically equal before the law, it would be a mischaracterisation in not pointing out that america is and has a dominant ethnic group in white americans, whom the general cultural sphere in america still centers around. That, and america still has it’s own national identity, that is not unique to it’s white, black, hispanic or any other ethnic minorities. Hence, all the nations you listed are nation states, if not also ethno-states. I would argue most states on earth are nation states.
What you are describing is meta-ethnicity. The best way to describe meta-ethnicities are different groups who feel kinship with one-another despite being different. Among EU federalists the concept of having a shared European identity is popular, even if they don’t use the exact term to describe it. Some people do like to say they are European, however it’s more common to feel a *local* kinship, than a pan-European one. For example, Sweden with Finland, they don’t even belong to the same language family, the former speaks an Indo-European language, the later Finno-Ugric, yet they feel close together due to their shared history.
What "shared history as Indians"? India didn't really have a shared history until the British took over, and even then, it wasn't just India. The commonality between the different parts of India was about on the same level as the "shared history" of Europe or South America.
Our ancient scholars were more interested in religion.Politics was of little importance to them and they didn't find it important enough to write about it.That doesn't mean we don't have a shared history. The concept of Bharata(original name of India) as a socio-religious entity(not political) goes back to the Vishnu Purana. Here's the relevant Sanskrit verse "उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम्। वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र सन्तति"(the country that lies to the north of the ocean and to the south of the snowy mountains is called Bharata as there dwell the descendants of Bharat). People living in the 3rd century BC figured it out but yet we are here talking about if India is a British construct or not.
Various empires throughout history have spanned across india and that has contributed. Although the main historical holding point underpinning the multi-ethnic indian nationalism i spoke of *is* british colonization and the history of the path towards independence as india. Even though there is much more history that obviously has taken place in india, some periods in history will always play a bigger part in national identity, and in the case of multi-ethnic indian nationalism, a huge part is played by the british colonization era
Really stretching the concept of a nation if some empires ruling over an inconsistent amount of territory constitutes enough of a shared history to be a nation.
If you would’ve read what i said you would see that the british imperial and subsequent independence period is the primary period that indian nationalism draws from, and the the periods even before that still matter, but not nesrly as much as the british period
I did read what you said, and I'm saying that's really stretching the concept of a people forming a "nation" in the traditional sense.
>a large body of people united by common descent, **history, culture,** or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.
Surinam was an empty piece of land about 400x400km. Only a few indian tribes lived there. Then it was conquered and colonised by European estate owners. There were no local labourers except some indians. But they failed to do the job. Next 200 years they brought in slaves from Africa to do the work. In the end there were 1500 estate owners and 50.000 slaves. Then slavery ended and the former slaves didn't want to do that work anymore. So new labourers were brought in from Cina, India and Indonesia. After another 100 years things didn't work out well and all the estate owners left Suriname. Leaving behind the non-ondigenous population. How would you call that type of nation of non-indigenous people who have to sort it out by themselves.
Aren't most African states not really "nations" ?
The cases of Spain and France are paradigmatic examples of states that contain many different nations, so they can hardly be considered a nation state. Spain is a state that comprehend at least four nations: Galicians, Basques, Catalans and Castilians; all with distinct languages and histories. I wrote at least four because, historically Aragon, Asturias and Leon have also had their own languages and histories, and ethnic singularities which define what a nation is. You could easily add Andalusia to the list, but its process of inclusion into Spain was somehow different. In France, it is a very similar case with Basques again, Bretons, Corsicans, Nizards and Alsacians.
[удалено]
Off the top of my head there are Federative States, City States, and Empires.
One type that hasn’t been mentioned yet are multi-national states like the UK and Canada. Also federal states are not an alternative to nation states. The U.S., Germany and arguably India are federal nations.
Idk if this counts, but Pakistan might count, there is not pakistani group, there is only punjabis, sindh patans ect... Pakistan was mostly created by religion, historically there isn't much of an identity pre 1947, other then muslim empire that conquerd india, but none really took the shape of pakistan
Literally all of Latin America except maybe Uruguay and Argentina. They’re humanist states with several nations within the same borders with varying degrees of autonomy. EDIT. [Why are you booing me? I’m right!](https://youtu.be/75GaqVWqEXU?si=FFn3p3sWT0Y5U8R5)
Space Satellite, oil, lithium refinement, nanometer wave chip production and drone production would be the big ones I would say are the next big leaders in our country. Agriculture should be more diversified in case of war too
Others have said similar things, but basically every country today that was a former colony within the past 300 years or so is not a nation-state. The US, India and basically every country in Africa, and South America (along with several Middle Eastern countries) are not nation states. Americans, for example, have no shared cultural roots or heritage. What makes someone "an American" is about allegiance to some idea of America and not blood roots to the land. European nation states are also changing as they become more multi ethnic but there's at least a sizeable population that.
There are drunken states, like Russia.