Originally posted by Gene Clean
Show me one source that disputes my definition of a classic nation-state (that there is one dominant ethnic group, that the state is for that group only and others are there by virtue of history or economics, that the state is totally defined by that group and that group only, and that the state exists to cater to that group and to that group only).
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
This may be your defintion of nation-state,not the commonly accepted one.
Since you seem to accept as source my link above:
A nation-state is a specific form of state (a political entity), which exists to provide a sovereign territory for a particular nation (a cultural entity), and which derives its legitimacy from that function.
This does not exclude the existence of ethnic minorities not the inclusion of ethnic-minority citizens with civil rights. And it does mention Italy and Germany as nation-states (under the heading Origins)
So you're ignoring the content of the link I posted? Classic.
You were right at I don't know.
You claimed the state's name was The Jewish State of Israel which it isn't.
As for there being no public debate about whether Israel should keep its current Jewish symbols or change them. I don't need your link to know about this issue, I'm an Israeli citizen, I speak, read and write Hebrew, I am well aware of the current state of public affairs there.
No there isn't. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a serious on-going debate about it.
Which there isn't, while the current state of affairs is contested on some fringes it does not bring a serious debate.
It's okay to have debates by the way, it doesn't make Israel, or Jews less of a nation, or less deserving of a state where they are equal amongst others.
I don't say it's not okay, only that there isn't one, theremight be one in the future, but there is none presently.
From your very own link:
Under the heading: Examples of nation-statesA classic nation-state, by definition, is inhabited by one ethnic group, who speak one language, have one culture, and share one religion. The population, in other words, is homogeneous. This group is referred to as the nation or the people. They all live inside the border of the nation-state. No other ethnic or cultural group lives there. It is often said that island states are the best place to find something like this, and Iceland is often cited as the best example of a nation-state.
This is to be expected with cooperative works such as Wikipedia, which can soemtimes have contradictions. This part is more like what the same article refers as the ideal nation-state than to what actually happens in real nation-states (France, Germany).This ideal has influenced almost all existing sovereign states, and they cannot be understood without reference to that model. It also explains how they are different from their predecessor states. Thus, the term nation-state is also used, imprecisely, for a state that attempts to promote a single national identity, often beginning with a single national language (e.g., France, Germany, and Italy).
These countries all have ethnic minorities whose individuals are nevertheless granted full citizenship and even (as in the case of German-speakers in Alto-Adige,Italy), territorial and cultural autonomy.
So the term is definitely not limited to countries with little or no ethnic minorities.
That's an oxymoron. You can't be a liberal-democracy and function as the nation-state of only one ethnic group when it's clear that there are significant amounts of people from other groups.
No, it means that states can be based on a certain national or ethnic identity, and that actually a large naumber of countries are just that. They then may decide to function as liberal democracies and have civil rights for all citizens including those of ethnic minorities, as is the case of Spain, Italy, or Israel.
Yet nation-states such as those of Western Europe function as liberal democracies, promoting the ethnic identity of their majority while granting full civil rights to minority citizens, sometimes going as far as granting minorities a cultural, lingusitic, and territorial autonomy.
That's why the ideal of a nation-state is a bogus one, formed in times of nationalist wars and rhetoric, as the best "protection" a nation can have.
The ideal of a full overlap between citzenship and nationality (in France the word nationalité is used interchangeably with citoyenneté) is unattainable, so nation-states accomodate reality without renouncing their commitment to particular national identity.
That's highly debatable.
Those committing most crimes are those which are not liberal democracies
Most mass crimes committed by states are committed by the likes of the PRC, Sudan, or Rwanda, far less than by the likes of Denmark or Portugal.
I'm talking about socio-economic policies of the 20-21st century, not the first steps toward confederation.
The foundation of Switzerland is that the cantons of Schwyz, Uri and Unterwalden didn't want to be part of the Holy Roman Empire.
You wrote about the foundation of the state and mentioned Switzerland, so that's in 1291.
It works both ways though - I think - as the neutral ones stay away from crimes of any nature,
Not of the crime of silent complicity.
including those committed to this day by the self-proclaimed liberal democracies.
Being imperfect entities,they sometimes commit crimes, although much less than the fashionable illiberal tyrannies (in my youth, many students liked Mao's paradise).
And the other liberal-democracies, the ones that take sides, often justify their taking sides (thus prolonging the conflict, if not influencing it) by various "policies" and "views" that they hold on an issue.
They also often solve conflicts. The reason why there's no civil war in Bosnia today is because some liberal democracies intervened.
One cannot be free from wrongdoing or error, which is why one should choose one's battles prudently. Liberal democracies' track record might be less than stellar in that department, it still beats the competition's by far.