undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjollybean4y ago0 comments

I think you're missing a lot of information here.

"Without states, there are no borders"

Well, the 'Nation State' is a modern concept, so no.

But if you were to say 'borders imply an administrative region of some kind' - then maybe.

But even without official, stated administrative organization, 'borders' still exist as the demarcation point between groups.

"You can’t just ignore the existence of the nation-state in discussing borders."

I absolutely did not, and I have no idea what you are referring to here.

"your argument here completely falls apart for America. "

No, it doesn't.

Start with the point that most 'states' (or administrative regions) in history, have been ethnocentric. From Egypt through Minoan, Greek, Roman etc..

Some more so than others. The US, no, Sweden, mostly.

0 comments

jolux4y ago

> Well, the 'Nation State' is a modern concept, so no.

The nation state is. The state is not. The state is ancient.

> But even without official, stated administrative organization, 'borders' still exist as the demarcation point between groups.

But they’re not borders as such. Without administration, they shift constantly, and frequently are not clear at the edges.

> Start with the point that most 'states' (or administrative regions) in history, have been ethnocentric. From Egypt through Minoan, Greek, Roman etc..

Sure, but the phenomenon of the nation state is the part that you’re missing here. You can argue that historically, humans have grouped themselves ethnically. What you can’t argue is that this somehow makes ethnocentrism in the political environment of a nation state “natural,” as the concept of the nation and the state have been aligned for hundreds of years now.

> Some more so than others. The US, no, Sweden, mostly.

But this distinction basically proves this is not intrinsic to how humans function. The existence of variation is a pretty good argument against historical determinism.

jollybeanOP4y ago

" What you can’t argue is that this somehow makes ethnocentrism in the political environment of a nation state “natural,” as the concept of the nation and the state have been aligned for hundreds of years now."

??? Yes, I'm making that argument and it's really obvious.

The 'modern nation state' is not fundamentally different from historical 'states' in this regard.

'Gaul' was an administrative state, part of the Roman Empire, roughly ethnocentric. 'France' is now.

Borders bounce around, but they mostly fit between ethnic groups. It doesn't really matter whether we are dealing with the modern notion of state or not.

"Some more so than others. The US, no, Sweden, mostly.

But this distinction basically proves this is not intrinsic to how humans function."

It really doesn't.

That 'some nation states' do not form along ethnic boundaries in not way 'proves' that ethnicity is not a natural vector for state formation.

Even if 'most' nation states formed along some other means, it still wouldn't prove that ethnicity is not a vector of formation.

The fact a number of ethnocentric states exists proves that it's a vector of formation.

The fact that 'most states' are roughly ethnocentric proves my point.

It's fairly obvious and not very controversial.

I think it's just one of those issues that triggers some people who hate the fact that ethnicity is a fairly important part of our identity, and then they step out of their ability to apply rhetoric in a reasonable way i.e. a kind of bad faith argumentation. It's the only explanation I can fathom for why people would argue with something so obvious. Vietnam has Vietnamese and Korea has Koreans. Obviously it's more complicated than that, but unless there are literal Nazis running around, and there generally are not, then who cares. It's really not a problem in most places in the world.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse