>>1265951>I'm not trying to shit up the thread with political garbage, but here's some autism about the way language is abused by societyThere is actually very little difference by the actual definition of 'nation', which is defined by a particular set of people. For some reason people have started using the word 'nation' to also fit the same meanings as the word 'state' but this is not accurate.
>Middle English nacioun, from Anglo-French naciun, from Latin nation-, natio birth, race, nation, from nasci to be born; akin to Latin gignere to beget>most accurate use: three Slav peoples … forged into a Yugoslavia without really fusing into a Yugoslav nation More here if you're interested:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationSo unless you consider all the different groups of people to be part of the same "birth, race, nation", i.e. "of the same people", the US isn't really a nation, but a set of nations living within a state. It would be a stretch to say that the USA is a 'nation' in the sense that the Kurdish are a 'nation'. To further illustrate this, a Kurdish nationalist is an advocate for the 'nation' of the Kurdish people, regardless of what piece of land he is living on. A member of the Rohingya nation could be living in Myanmar while still being a part of the Rohingya nation.
The argument you would have to have with the person you are criticizing is whether or not America is a genuine 'nation', or as modern sociology views us, a 'salad bowl' of different peoples. This makes or breaks the definition of what it means to be an, 'American'. If you say America is a 'nation', who is part of that 'nation'? Are you just a 'nationalist' by the modern understanding, which can literally just be a shared piece of land, a 'nationalist' of the American gov and its borders? Or are you a 'nationalist' for a particular 'nation' living within the state of the USA?
