By bwite lukamaWorld divided

The point here is to get us thinking about our world, howdifferent and how similar we human are, and how we categorizeourselves. What we will see is that we have no damage ofourselves as humans. Rather we divide ourselves up ethnicallyinto poles, Irish, Chinese Ugandan, Kenya, and others.

We-group dispute on manifest human similarities, there is astrong urge to identify and organize politically around thenational connection. If you think about it, you see yourselfpolitically as a citizen of a certain counting e.g. Canada, USA,Tanzania, Ghana etc. you might even be willing to fight and alsodie for your country.

This country level form is nationalism; Nationalism has hadan important impact on world politics for several centuries. Itwas probably continue to help shape people’s minds and affairs inthe forcible future. However, nationalism is not as secure today as it once was. Someeven ask question whether it will or should continue.

The future of nationalism is important because, like theroman god Janis, it has two faces. Nationalism has been apositive force for political integration and building. It hasalso brought despair and destruction to the world. It is inessence, both a uniting and a dividing force in internationalpolitics.

Understanding the roots of world division requires that weunderstand four concepts -State -Nation-Nation-state -Nationalism

State: is a tangible entity: It has territory, people,organization and other observable characteristics, whether largeor small, populous or not, states normally share sixcharacteristics e.g. Canada, Russia Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda etc areplaces.

State: The accepted definition of a state was supplied by MaxWeber in his book Politics as a Vocation: "A sovereign entity (rulesitself), within a defined/specific territory (in definedborders), that holds a monopoly of the legitimate use of violence in theenforcement of its order. An empire does not have borders as itchooses to continually advance them. A state does not necessarilyrule a people with a common culture, it is merely a politicalconcept. Examples of a state: Iraq/Yemen/any state in the UnitedNations.

A State (note the capital "S") is a self-governing politicalentity. The term State can be used interchangeably with country.

David Friedman's definition of a state is an "organization thatexercises legitimate coercion." What is coercion? Anything that aprivate actor is not allowed to do. This definition is a tad bitcircular, although I think I know what he means. A privateproperty owner cannot arrest and jail someone for refusing to payrent, a government is unique because it can jail someone forrefusing to pay rent (taxes). Two things bother me about thisdefinition. Imagine the U.S. government changed its laws so thatthe worst punishment for failing to pay taxes or takingprescription meds without approval was to be exiled (evicted).Would this mean the U.S. was a stateless society? That isintuitively absurd. My second problem with the definition is thatit defines based on the symptoms, not the underlying phenomena.

A state is a society of men recognized for the continuance oforder and justice within a strong-minded territory by way offorce. The state is a group of persons more or less numerous,eternally occupying a specific portion of territory sovereign ornearly so of outside control and possessing organized governmentto which the great body of persons deliver usual compliance.

There must be an everlasting population in the logic that it must

be established within convinced limits. A travelling tribe asthat of nomads will not be enough. There must be a defined areain which the people are established. The real area of the land isunimportant; it may consist of one town only.

There must be a Government. Therefore a land without Government,a radical group of people, is not a State. There must be aability to enter into relations with other states. Thisdistinguishes states good form non-sovereign or non-independentunits like colonies and protectorates which do not handle theirown overseas dealings. It may be noted that uniqueness associatedwith a State's independence are; the power exclusively to controlits own domestic dealings, the power to admit and expel aliens,the constitutional rights of its diplomatic envoys in othercountries, the sole authority over crimes authentic within itsown land. Anonymous

The state has four essential elements:

1. Population2. Territory3. Government4. Sovereignty

What follows now is a brief elaboration of these elements.

1. Population

The State is a human institution. Hence population is it’s firstand foremost element. No state can be imagined without thepeople, as there must be some to rule and others to be ruled. Thepeople constitute its "personal basis".

It is however, difficult to fix the size of the population of astate. For the Greek Philosopher Plato, the ideal state shouldnot contain more than 5040 people. But Rousseau the FrenchPhilosopher would treat 10,000 inhabitants as the idealpopulation.

Modern states greatly vary in population. While some modernstates (e.g. the USA, Russia and Canada) are still under

populated relating to area, resources and similar factors, others(e.g., China, India, Egypt) are confronted by the problem ofpopulation which is expanding too rapidly for their natural andtechnological resources. There is no such hard and first rule asto the number of people required to make a state. The populationof a state must be large enough to preserve the politicalindependence and to exploit its natural resources and smallenough to be well governed.

But it is the kind of people that matters more than theirnumbers. What kind of people comprises a particular state? Arethey literate, well educated, culturally advanced? Aristotlerightly has said that a good citizen makes a good state. So whatis important is the quality of people, their character, theirculture and their sense of belonging to the state.

2. Territory

People cannot constitute a state, unless they inhabit in adefinite territory When they reside permanently in a fixed place,they develop a community of interests and a sense of unity. Itbecomes easy to organise them into a political unit and controlthem. So the state requires a fixed territory, with clearlydemarcated boundaries over which it exercises undisputedauthority. Territory is its "material basis". The territory of astate comprises:

i) Land, mountains, rivers and lakes within its frontiers,

ii) Territorial water, extending six miles into the sea from thecoast,

iii) Air space, lying above its territory.

The state has full rights of control and use over its territory.Any interference with the rights of one state by others may leadto war.

But how much territory is necessary for the maintenance of state?There is no accepted rule as to the size of a state's territory.In the modern world, we find states of all sizes and shapes. Moreimportant than the size are the nature resources and the location

of the state. A geographically contiguous territory is an asset;otherwise it creates problems of administration and control.

3. Government

Government is the important- indeed, indispensable machinery bymean of which the state maintains its existence, carries on itsfunctions and realise its policies and objectives. A community ofpersons does not form a state unless it is organised by anestablished government.

Government usually consists of three branches: the Legislature,the Executive and the Judiciary. Their respective functions arelegislation, administration and adjudication. The particular formof government depends upon the nature of the state which in turndepends upon the political habits and character of the people.

4. Sovereignty

The fourth essential element of the state is sovereignty. It isthat important element which distinguishes the state from allother associations. The word 'Sovereignty' denotes supreme andfinal legal authority and beyond which no further legal powerexists.

Sovereignty has two aspects- internal and external. Internalsovereignty is the supreme authority of the state over allindividuals and associations within its geographical limits. Byvirtue of it, the state makes- and enforces laws on persons andassociations. Any violation of these laws will lead topunishment.

External sovereignty implies the freedom of the state fromforeign control. No external authority can limit its power. Indiabefore 1947 was not a state because though it had the other threeelements, i.e., population, territory and government, the fourthand the most important one i.e., independence was missing.

A state's sovereignty extends to its territory. The sovereigntyof the state over its territory and its people must be acceptedas undisputed. A state also requires recognition by othersovereign states. Such recognition is provided by the community

of states; international organisations like the United Nations,which grant membership to sovereign states. The UN membership isa means of recognising state's sovereignty whenever a new statecomes into existence, its recognition by other states and by UNis extremely important.

The term 'state' generally used for the units of the IndianRepublic or for any of the fifty states which make the UnitedStates of America, is a misnomer. None of them enjoyssovereignty. Lack of sovereignty gives them no position or rankas states. Only by courtesy, we call them as states.

Every state must have its population, a definite territory, aduly established government and sovereignty. Absence of any ofthese elements denies to it the status of statehood.

The central problem of the state

States are infamous for behaving badly by the standards of non-state actors. No business would last a nano-second if it had thebalance sheet and cash flow of the U.S. government. No individualcould stay out of prison if it behaved as a state. States lie,cheat, and kill.

The reason states act so badly is that, by definition, there isno higher power that holds them accountable. This has twoimplications a) opportunistic, predator states will behave badlybecause if they are strong, they are rewarded for behaving badlyb) responsible states will have to make hard decisions aboutdefending against and pre-empting enemy states. Unlike the likeindividuals who live under a state, the state itself iscompletely responsible for protecting itself. And of course, theboundary between a predator state and defender state is neverclear. Most empire builders claim they built their empires purelythrough defensive wars.

Since states behave so badly, some think that state-lesssocieties may behave better. But this is a total misreading ofthe situation. As we noted above there are three types ofstateless society. Two of them - the roving tribe, and the tribalvillage - are by definition unavailable to us because of thescale of our society. That means the only possible statelesssociety is a society where there are multiple competingmilitaries with none exercising police powers over the other.

The mistake the anarchist makes is that he thinks states are badbecause they have a monopoly over force in a territory. Inreality states are bad because they have no one higher holdingthem accountable. By adding two or three or more militariestogether in a territory, you have made the problem much worse.Now you have three militaries that are not accountable to anyhigher power. States often behave badly, but there are twofactors moderating their behavior. One, if you have a selectionprocess selecting responsible men and women to lead the state,the state may behave reasonably well. Two, even if you haveselfish people running the state, if the state has secureownership of a territory it will try and grow the economy like amaster grows a garden, not exploit it like a roving bandit. Thestate will invest in infrastructure and education, provide ruleof law, and tax at a rate low enough to encourage economicgrowth.

States and Independent Countries

Let's start with what defines a State or an independent country.An independent State:

Has space or territory which has internationally recognizedboundaries (boundary disputes are OK).

Has people who live there on an ongoing basis. Has economic activity and an organized economy. A country

regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money. Has the power of social engineering, such as education. Has a transportation system for moving goods and people. Has a government which provides public services and police

power. Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the

country's territory. Has external recognition. A country has been "voted into the

club" by other countries.

There are currently 196 independent countries or States aroundthe world. Territories of countries or individual parts of acountry are not countries in their own right. Sovereignty: The single most important political characteristicof a state is sovereignty. This term means that the sovereignactor (the state) does not recognize as legitimate any higherauthority. It also includes the idea of legal equality amongstates. Sovereign state developed as the rulers of Europe brokeaway from the secular dominance of the Holy Roman Empire and thetheological authority of the pope after middle ages. The newstates exercised supreme authority over their territory andcitizens.It’s important to note that sovereignty a legal and theoreticalterm different from independence, a political and applied term.Independence-is not absolute in real world where power isimportant. Some time a small country can be dominated by apowerful neighbor that its independence is dubious at best.

Also sovereignty is slowly loosing its lower, currentlyunder the important changes in international system. Sovereigntyin no longer an excuse for a regime for continues suppressing thecitizens.

Territory: A second characteristics of a state is territory. Itwould seem obvious that a state must have physical boundaries,and most states do. On closer examination though the question of

boundaries is complex. There are numerous international disputesover borders; territory boundaries can expand, contract or shiftdramatically; and it’s possible to have a state withoutterritory. Many countries recognize that Palestine are a stateyet the Palestinian are spread a cross other countries especiallyJodan.Population; People are an obvious requirement of any state. Thepopular of state range from 820 in habitants of holy seat(Vatican) to china with more than 7.5 billion, but a state countthis characteristic as a minimum requirement.Diplomatic recognition: A classic rhetoric is that if a treefalls in the forest and no one hears it, did it make noise? Thesame questions govern the issue of state hood and the recognitionby others. It a political entity declares its independence but nosingle country recognizes it is a state? The answer seems to beno. it would be difficult for any aspiration to statehood tosurvive for long without recognition. Economic problems result ofform the inability to establish trade relation is just oneexample of the difficult that would a rise.It does not matter how many countries recognize you. Israel wasrecognized by only USA, and Russia when it declared itsindependence in 1948, the Arab neighbors didn’t, the regarded ita Zionist invader.Internal organization: State must normally have some level ofpolitical and economic structure. Most states have a good butstatehood continues during period of severe turmoil, evenanarchy. Somalia is in chaos yet it continues to exist legally.Internal loyalty. The final this of a state is internal loyalty.This internal that a states population supports the state(patriotism) and grants it the authority to make rules and togovern (legitimacy). For all the coercive power that a stateusually possesses, it is difficult for any state for survivewithout at least the passive acquiescence of its people.

What are the characteristics of the State?

1) A monopoly on violence. A group of people who want to controlor exert their wills on others is obtained by force over a givengeographical area, call it a nation, province, state, or

whatever. This group of people must eliminate all competitionfrom other groups seeking the same control. There can be onlyone, or you have areas that look like Somalia, where militantsare competing against each other to become the new government. Whether they use fists, stones, spears, machine guns or nuclearweapons, to exert their force or implied threat of force, amonopoly of force is required at first. How that force isobtained (i.e. a military junta, a dictatorship, fascism,communism, aristocracy, plutocracy, democracy, or a republic) isan academic exercise. The requirement for control is basic.

Once that monopoly on violence (MoV) is obtained, Isay we stilldon’t have a government. We need the second point.

2) The sanction of the victim. I can think of no better phrasethan to coin Ayn Rand’s phrase from Atlas Shrugged. People livingunder a military dictatorship will not produce willingly unlessthey consent. The economic construct is such that people willonly produce if they are forced to. What do they produce?Whatever the monopoly on violence forces them to do and nothingmore, other than squabbling for the essentials of food, water,and shelter. Normally, I would add safety, but if people wereexpected to produce only to have it confiscated by the rulingMoV, they would make no effort to improve productivity. This iswhy some areas under control of an MoV without sanction of thevictim are so destitute. No one will produce very much underconstant threat of having the fruits of their labour stolen.

Think of the difference between a prisoner and a slave. Aprisoner is an economic liability whereas the slave is aneconomic asset to the owner. The variable here is the degree ofsubmission. A prisoner is a prisoner because he refuses tosubmit. A slave submits instead of refusing to work at all fortheir owners. Now we can certainly make the case that a slavewill do the bare minimum of work as directed in fear of receivingpunishment, or have sustenance withheld, but they still submit. Iread somewhere that during the slave trade era, there was aparticular tribe that refused to submit at all. There resistancewas so stoic, they would opt to die than to submit. Consequently,

the slave traders stopped trying to capture members of that tribeor clan.

You cannot have economic output with prisoners if the prisonerrefuses to submit. Once any degree of submission is obtained fromthe prisoner, they begin the transition from prisoner to slave.Certainly slaves would not look for productivity improvements inthe task at hand to benefit their owners, but probably would toalleviate their workload.

3) Point of contact with government. This is the nextrequirement. Government secures agents to enforce their edicts.If they did not, the controlled would ignore them eventually.This happened in recent years (well, relatively recent) when theUS was being colonized. They paid no tax to the King of Englandfor 100 years. If government moved into the area, they simplymoved further out west. What is interesting and amazing is howmany people become “criminals” when the State muscles in to tryand collect tribute or confiscate the fruits of their labour viataxation.

4) Economic surplus. A group of non-productive people removedfrom the economy to rule over its constituents must be able tosiphon off economic wealth to sustain them. This is not to saythe political parasitic class isn’t busy; it is – devising waysto suppress you.

In closing, the State first obtained its power by exploiting oursuperstitions at first, believing their power descended fromdeity, a witch doctor, a cleric, (i.e. a King or Pope receivedtheir powers from divinity or other such nonsense).

Nations

A nation, however, is a tightly-knit group of people which sharea common culture. A nation-state is a nation which has the sameborders as a State.

A nation is a less tangible phenomenon that is a state. A nationof course, includes tangible people, but what creates a nation

are less tangible elements such as similarities among the people,a sense of connection, and desire of the people to controlthemselves politically.

a) Similarities:- Are the first of the elements of a nation, anation is known as a group of people who fell themselves tobe a community bound together by ties of history, culture,and common ancestry (Kellas, 1999).

In political science, a "nation" refers to a group of people whofeel bound into a single body by shared culture, values,folkways, religion and/or language. A "state" just refers to apatch of land with a sovereign government. States often coincidewith nations (and are called "nation-states," but not always.States that overlap multiple nations tend to have civil wars;states that exclude parts of a nation tend to have wars with theneighboring state(s) that contain the rest of the nation.

A nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined commonhistory, culture, identity, religion, morality, language,traditions, ethnicity or ethnic origin; typically inhabit aparticular country/territory/region. Examples of a nation: theKurds, which reside in northern Iraq and parts of Turkey; theBasque, which inhabit parts of northern Spain and southernFrance; the Palestinians.

a) Depending on the source, there are 189-195 states in theworld today and 800+ nationsOften a nation shares certain similarities. These may be

demographic characteristics-such as language race, and religionor a common culture as historic experiences. When these factorsare strongly present the formation of the nation precedes that ofthe state.

i) A feeling of community: Is the second element that helpsdefine a nation perception is the key here. For all similaritiesa group might have, it is not a nation unless it fells like one.ii) A desire to be politically separate? Is the third elementthat defines a nation. What distinguishes a nation from an ethnicgroup is that the nation, unlike the ethnic group hen a desire tobe self governing or at least autonomous.

Nation states A third element of the world divided is the nation-state,

which combines the previous two concepts. A national state is intheory, the natural outgrowth of a nations desire to have andmaintain its own state and to govern itself independently. Thenation-state is represented by many symbols, such as flags,national anthems, or animals(eagles, bears, dragons) it’s theobserved of patriotic loyalty, and most people view of in thehighest form of political authority ( Brass, 1992).

The nation state is a state that self-identifies as deriving its political legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit.The state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. The term "nation state" implies that the two geographically coincide. Nation state formation took place at different times in different parts of the earth but has become the dominant form of state organization.

In practice the nation-state concept diverges from the idealin two ways. Indeed some scholars prefer the term national stateto emphasize the idea of a state driven by nationalism.

The first inconsistency in the nation-state idea is thatmany states contain more than one nation with in the boundaries.Canada is one example where both French-and English speakingpeople each with distinct cultural heritages, inhabit-the samestate.

Secondary many nations overlap one as more internationalboundaries. The presence of Serbia in Yugoslavia, Bosnia, andcreation is a current illustration. This lack of “fit” betweennations and states is often a source of international conflict.A nation-state is a country. However, the words nation, state, andcountry are sometimes used to mean the same thing. Even thoughthese words are used interchangeably, they can also have othermeanings. A nation can refer to an ethnic group, even one that isout of power and does not have its own country. A state can alsobe part of a larger country.

All nation-states share certain characteristics: self-rule,organized government, territory, and population. Self-rule meansthat nation-states rule themselves. They are independent, notcolonies of another country. For example, part of what is now theOrganized government is the way in which nation-states rulethemselves. For example, the government of the United States isorganized into three branches: executive, legislative, andjudicial. It is also organized into three levels: federal, state,and local. Not all nation-states are organized in the same way asthe United States. However, they all have governments that areorganized in some way.

The origins and early history of nation states are disputed. A major theoretical issue is: "Which came first, the nation or the nation state?" For nationalists, the answer is that the nation existed first, nationalist movements arose to present its legitimate demand for sovereignty, and the nation state met that demand. Some "modernization theories" of nationalism see the national identity largely as a product of government policy to unify and modernize an already existing state. Most theories see the nation state as an 1800s European phenomenon, facilitated by developments such as mass literacy and the early mass media. However, historians also note the early emergence of a relativelyunified state, and a sense of common identity, in Portugal and the Dutch Republic.

In France, Eric Hobsbawm argues the French state preceded theformation of the French people. Hobsbawm considers that the statemade the French nation, not French nationalism, which emerged atthe end of the 19th century, the time of the Dreyfus Affair. Atthe time of the 1789 French Revolution, only half of the Frenchpeople spoke some French, and 12-13% spoke it "fairly", accordingto Hobsbawm

The theorist Benedict Anderson argues that nations are "imagined communities" (the members cannot possibly know each other), and that the main causes of nationalism and the creation of an

imagined community are the reduction of privileged access to particular script languages (such as Latin), the movement to abolish the ideas of divine rule and monarchy, as well as the emergence of the printing press under a system of capitalism (or,as Anderson calls it, print-capitalism). The "state-driven" theories of the origin of nation states tend to emphasize a few specific states, such as England and its rival France. These states expanded from core regions, and developed a national consciousness and sense of national identity ("Englishness" and "Frenchness").

The idea of a nation state is associated with the rise of the modern system of states, often called the "Westphalian system" inreference to the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). The balance of power, which characterizes that system, depends for its effectiveness upon clearly defined, centrally controlled, independent entities, whether empires or nation states, which recognize each others sovereignty and territory. The Westphalian system did not create the nation state, but the nation state meets the criteria for its component states (by assuming that there is no disputed territory).

The nation state received a philosophical underpinning in the eraof Romanticism, at first as the 'natural' expression of theindividual peoples (romantic nationalism: see Johann GottliebFichte's conception of the Volk, which would be later opposed byErnest Renan). The increasing emphasis during the 19th century onthe ethnic and racial origins of the nation, led to aredefinition of the nation state in these terms. Racism, which inBoulainvilliers's theories was inherently antipatriotic andantinationalist, joined itself with colonialist imperialism and"continental imperialism", most notably in pan-Germanic and pan-Slavic movements

In recent years, the nation state's claim to absolute sovereigntywithin its borders has been much criticized. A global political system based on international agreements and supra-national blocscharacterized the post-war era. Non-state actors, such as international corporations and non-governmental organizations,

are widely seen as eroding the economic and political power of nation states, potentially leading to their eventual disappearance.

Nation states have their own characteristics, differing from those of the pre-national states. For a start, they have a different attitude to their territory, compared to the dynastic monarchies: it is semisacred, and nontransferable. No nation would swap territory with other states simply, for example, because the king's daughter got married. They have a different type of border, in principle defined only by the area of settlement of the national group, although many nation states also sought natural borders (rivers, mountain ranges).

The most noticeable characteristic is the degree to which nation states use the state as an instrument of national unity, in economic, social and cultural life.

The nation state promoted economic unity, by abolishing internal customs and tolls. In Germany, that process, the creation of the Zollverein, preceded formal national unity. Nation states typically have a policy to create and maintain a national transportation infrastructure, facilitating trade and travel. In 19th-century Europe, the expansion of the rail transport networkswas at first largely a matter for private railway companies, but gradually came under control of the national governments. The French rail network, with its main lines radiating from Paris to all corners of France, is often seen as a reflection of the centralised French nation state, which directed its construction.Nation states continue to build, for instance, specifically national motorway networks. Specifically, transnational infrastructure programmes, such as the Trans-European Networks, are a recent innovation.

The nation states typically had a more centralised and uniform public administration than its imperial predecessors: they were smaller, and the population less diverse. (The internal diversityof the Ottoman Empire, for instance, was very great.) After the 19th-century triumph of the nation state in Europe, regional identity was subordinate to national identity, in regions such as

Alsace-Lorraine, Catalonia, Brittany, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica. In many cases, the regional administration was also subordinated to central (national) government. This process was partially reversed from the 1970s onward, with the introduction of various forms of regional autonomy, in formerly centralised states such as France.

The most obvious impact of the nation state, as compared to its non-national predecessors, is the creation of a uniform national culture, through state policy. The model of the nation state implies that its population constitutes a nation, united by a common descent, a common language and many forms of shared culture. When the implied unity was absent, the nation state often tried to create it. It promoted a uniform national language, through language policy. The creation of national systems of compulsory primary education and a relatively uniform curriculum in secondary schools, was the most effective instrument in the spread of the national languages. The schools also taught the national history, often in a propagandistic and mythologised version, and (especially during conflicts) some nation states still teach this kind of history.

Language and cultural policy was sometimes negative, aimed at thesuppression of non-national elements. Language prohibitions were sometimes used to accelerate the adoption of national languages, and the decline of minority languages, see Germanisation.

In some cases, these policies triggered bitter conflicts andfurther ethnic separatism. But where it worked, the culturaluniformity and homogeneity of the population increased.Conversely, the cultural divergence at the border became sharper:in theory, a uniform French identity extends from the Atlanticcoast to the Rhine, and on the other bank of the Rhine, a uniformGerman identity begins. To enforce that model, both sides havedivergent language policy and educational systems, although thelinguistic boundary is in fact well inside France, and the Alsaceregion changed hands four times between 1870 and 1945

Territory is the land and water that is governed by a nation-state. The territory of the United States includes all of its

fifty states, nearby areas of ocean, and other areas, such asPuerto Rico and Guam, which are governed by the United States.The laws of the United States are enforced within its territory.Population refers to the people who live in the nation-state. Thepopulation of a nation-state can be made up of differentethnicities. However, all citizens share the same nationality.The term nation-state can be especially confusing to people who livein the UnitedStates because the United State is a nation made up of fi ftystates. Each of the fi fty states rules itself with an organizedstate government, and each state has a territory and apopulation. However, the fi fty states are not nation-states,because they are still part of a larger unit, the nation. Theyrule themselves, but they are also subject to national laws.They are not completely independent

Nation-State: Countries where the social concept of "nation"coincides with the political concept of "state" are callednation-state. Examples of a nation-state: France, USA, Israel.

While the terms country, state, and nation are often usedinterchangeably, there is a difference.

Examples of entities that are not countries include: Hong Kong,Bermuda, Greenland, Puerto Rico, and most notably the constituentparts of the United Kingdom. (Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland,and England are not countries.)

A "state" (with a lower-case "s") is usually a division of afederal State (such as the states of the United States ofAmerica).

Nations and Nation-States

Nations are culturally homogeneous groups of people, larger thana single tribe or community, which share a common language,institutions, religion, and historical experience.

When a nation of people have a State or country of their own, itis called a nation-state. Places like France, Egypt, Germany, andJapan are excellent examples of nation-states. There are someStates which have two nations, such as Canada and Belgium. Evenwith its multicultural society, the United States is alsoreferred to as a nation-state because of the shared American"culture."

There are nations without States. For example, the Kurds arestateless people.

"Public" and "private" two evil, Orwellian words

There are two words relating to states and government that Iabsolutely despise. Those words are "public" and "private". Thesewords are Orwellian, inaccurate, deceptive, nonsense. When I'mczar of the language a special microchip will be implanted in allwriters and speakers and they will get zapped when they use thewords. I beseech all those writing about political theory topretend said microchip has already been implanted.

Usually the word "public" is used to refer to the state orgovernment. "Private" refers to non-state. But why these words?Is a state actually more "public"? Here is an experiment: trywalking into the offices of the NSA and taking pictures of thepeople walking through. Then go to a "privately" owned shoppingmall and do the same. Which is really more public?

Or try enrolling your kid in the school of the richestneighboring suburb. Then try enrolling in the nearby catholicschool. Which is more public? Note that the "public" school isactually way, way more expensive, since you need to pay forresidency in the town to access the school.

The fiction is that since the government is responsible to thevoters, it is public and anything it does is "public". Thereality is that the government is no more responsive to yourvotes, than any "private" actor is responsive to your dollars asa consumer or your votes as a shareholder. In fact, the "public"government is actually much less responsive to the general publicthan say, Microsoft, is, because the public government has adysfunctional management structure. If the "public" vote withtheir wallets for Apple, Bill Gates throws a fit and the Windowsproduct improves. When the "public" votes with their ballots forObama, you get a continuation of the bailouts, a continuation ofthe middle east wars, a continuation of the entire civil serviceand the gazillion things government does that no one paysattention to.

The word "public" is thus Orwellian, because it is a) untrue andbecause it is self-serving to the existing ruling elite. Butdefining the government as "public" it gives the government andthe rulers, a much higher level of legitimacy. It skews theentire debate. For instance, if I say, "should schools be publicor private", of course I want them to be public!. If I say,"should schools be unaccountable to the public, or accountable tothe public", of course I want the latter. But in truth, the"private" schools are the one's accountable to the public, andthe "public" schools are unaccountable since teachers unions andcivil service rules prevent it. Thus by changing language,progressives have made black turn into white, public private, andprivate public.

Unfortunately, libertarians fall into the same trap, for theirown reasons. The libertarian wishes to maintain the idea that thegovernment is categorically different from "private" individuals,and therefore cannot own property like a private person. Thelibertarian accepts that a private person can charge taxes/rent,or can control who opens a store in a mall. But by maintainingthe distinction, the libertarian tries to delegitimize thegovernment doing the same thing.

Yet the libertarian buys into the language of the ruling class,and therefore the battle is already tilted against him. Worse, itis quite confusing what the libertarian thinks is the problemwith public ownership. When a libertarian says, "schools shouldbe privatized" presumably he means that the organization thatoperates the schools should be separated from the organizationthat exercises police power. But then what does it mean toprivatize the police? Or to privatize a city? The word"privatize" becomes confusing and meaningless.

Characteristics of the nation stateNation states have their own characteristics, differing from those of the pre-national states. For a start, they have a different attitude to their territory, compared to the dynastic monarchies: it is semisacred, and nontransferable. No nation would swap territory with other states simply, for example, because the king's daughter got married. They have a different type of border, in principle defined only by the area of settlement of the national group, although many nation states also sought natural borders (rivers, mountain ranges).

The most noticeable characteristic is the degree to which nation states use the state as an instrument of national unity, in economic, social and cultural life.

The nation state promoted economic unity, by abolishing internal customs and tolls. In Germany, that process, the creation of the Zollverein, preceded formal national unity. Nation states typically have a policy to create and maintain a national transportation infrastructure, facilitating trade and travel. In 19th-century Europe, the expansion of the rail transport networkswas at first largely a matter for private railway companies, but gradually came under control of the national governments. The French rail network, with its main lines radiating from Paris to all corners of France, is often seen as a reflection of the centralised French nation state, which directed its construction.Nation states continue to build, for instance, specifically national motorway networks. Specifically, transnational infrastructure programmes, such as the Trans-European Networks, are a recent innovation.

The nation states typically had a more centralised and uniform public administration than its imperial predecessors: they were smaller, and the population less diverse. (The internal diversityof the Ottoman Empire, for instance, was very great.) After the 19th-century triumph of the nation state in Europe, regional identity was subordinate to national identity, in regions such asAlsace-Lorraine, Catalonia, Brittany, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica. In many cases, the regional administration was also subordinated to central (national) government. This process was partially reversed from the 1970s onward, with the introduction of various forms of regional autonomy, in formerly centralised states such as France.

The most obvious impact of the nation state, as compared to its non-national predecessors, is the creation of a uniform national culture, through state policy. The model of the nation state implies that its population constitutes a nation, united by a common descent, a common language and many forms of shared culture. When the implied unity was absent, the nation state often tried to create it. It promoted a uniform national

language, through language policy. The creation of national systems of compulsory primary education and a relatively uniform curriculum in secondary schools, was the most effective instrument in the spread of the national languages. The schools also taught the national history, often in a propagandistic and mythologised version, and (especially during conflicts) some nation states still teach this kind of history.[10]

Language and cultural policy was sometimes negative, aimed at thesuppression of non-national elements. Language prohibitions were sometimes used to accelerate the adoption of national languages, and the decline of minority languages, see Germanisation.

In some cases, these policies triggered bitter conflicts and further ethnic separatism. But where it worked, the cultural uniformity and homogeneity of the population increased. Conversely, the cultural divergence at the border became sharper:in theory, a uniform French identity extends from the Atlantic coast to the Rhine, and on the other bank of the Rhine, a uniformGerman identity begins. To enforce that model, both sides have divergent language policy and educational systems, although the linguistic boundary is in fact well inside France, and the Alsaceregion changed hands four times between 1870 and 1945.

Nationalism The fourth and final phenomenon of the world dividedis nationalism itself. Nationalism is the sense of essentialpolitical identity. Liah Greenfield (1992) defines nationalism asthe location of the source of individuals identity with a people”which is seen as the bearer of sovereignty, the central object ofloyalty, and the basis of collective solidarity”. As such,nationalism brings together the concept of state nation, andnation-state in away that are personally related to citizens.This occur according to another study; when individuals -Become sentimentally attached to the homeland -Gain a sense of identity and self esteem through their nationalidentification” and -Are “motivated to help the country.

This third, motivational characteristics addresses the point thatnationalism is more than just a sense of connection. It alsodictates action. One idea, called identification theory” Suggeststhat people form nations to obtain psychological security ofbelonging to a “we-group”(Boom, 1990). Having walesced themembers of the group then act in concert to promise theircollective interests. This national interests often includesfounding a state and expanding its strength and territory.

One scholar has observed that the “core nationalismdoctrine” includes the propositions that:--Humanity is naturally divided into nations; -Each nation has peculiar characteristics -The source of all political power is the nation, the collectivewhole.-For freedom and self-realization, people must identify with anation.-Nations can be fulfilled only by their own states and -Loyalty to the nation-state over sides other (politicalloyalties.

Some scholars, argue that nationalism does not have to be narrowand that a global nationalism could emerge based on thesimilarities among all humans, their common experiences and theiridentification with one another as human kind. Greenfield (1992)suggests that for instance, that a nation coextensive withhumanity is in no way a contradiction in terms. (the people ofthe united states of the world in would be a nation in the strictsense of the word within frame work of nationalism” certainlyGreenfield is correct in stating that human kind might one daycome together as a nation and even create a global government.