Is the concept of nation explicitly ethnic?
I always thought that a “nation-state” was a synonym for a sovereign country, but the Wikipedia article on the subject reads a little ambiguous.
It is a more precise concept than "country", since a country does not need to have a predominant ethnic group.
"Country", "State" and "Nation" are often used synonymously to refer to political entities. But if you want to nitpick:
So People can reside in a country, but you can not be part of a country. Mountains, forests or cities can be part of a country, but people can not because people aren't geographical places.
For example, let's say you are a citizen of Arstotzka, but you currently work and live in Kolechia as a guest worker.
A nation state is a state where the majority of the population is considered to be part of one nation and where no notable numbers of that nation live outside of the state. Real world counter-examples are:
However, I would not be surprised if some people would dispute these two examples. You could claim that the people who live in North Korea and South Korea have diverged so far in their culture that they can no longer be considered one nation. One could also claim that the Scottish, Welsh, English and North-Irish are subjects of the United Kingdom for so long that they are now just different ethnic groups within one "British" nation.
Which groups of people are the same nation and which are not can be a very subjective distinction. And people often try to establish their preferred definitions to achieve political goals. For example, when a region of a country is having a referendum for independence, then the proponents might claim "We should be independent because we are a separate nation" while the opponents might claim "We should stay together because we are part of one big nation". Who of them is right? That's a matter of personal opinion.
No. The concept of a nation is not explicitly ethnic.
Despite the recent preponderance of intersectionality considerations, or the vast multitudes of nations that appear ethnic, a single ethnic build up is not an explicit requirement of being a nation.
It is possible for a national identity to exist as the superset, having a greater hierarchical ranking than ethnic considerations. Part of this can be seen as the general aim for the long arc of small 'r' republican values built into the Constitution of the United States at ratification. While there was ethnic flaws in the implementation of the concepts of individual rights and equal protection of the law, the last an assumed measure that wasn't codified until the 14th amendment, the Constitution is largely ethnic neutral.
" But the 3/5ths compromise"
Rebuttal: would you prefer that slaves weren't counted at all, or that they were counted as full portions? The Southern states, with an interest in protecting their markets, wanted them counted as full people for representation, without the protections of the very document in question. Those opposed to slavery wanted it as none, to limit the Souths power; the downside here is it would codify their lack of personhood even further. Instead, there was a compromise. Some measure of counting, but not the full measure because they aren't enfranchised.
To the Point A nation can exist independent of a shared ethnic background. Look to the UK; while the vast majority of the populace shares the same melanon content, they are different ethnic group.
No.
Belgium has ~50/50 split between 2 major ethnicities and a whole bunch of others
One can argue that Spain contains a bunch of ethnic enclaves. Same was of course true for Yugoslavia.
Russia is not ethnically monolithic and even has geographic areas where other ethnicities are majority population.. USSR was obviously even less so, being an empire - some projections had Russians losing majority in USSR at some near point as per Wiki.
China has 10% of non-ethnically-Han population
India has multiple ethnicities, including 20%-25% Dravidians and 5-10% others.
The point is, most nation states came about by force of arms in one way or another. The only difference is how long ago - North and South ethnicities in India have been in conflict many centuries ago; Spain unified in the process of conflicts that ended up with Fedrinand and Isabella marrying; France unified as a result of 100 years war; Germany in 19th century; Russia as a result of constant warlike (or outright war) expansion. As such, winners got a bigger state while losers ended up as ethnic enclaves in it. Lather, rinse, repeat over many centuries. Egypt had this repeated over thousands of years (most recent and ethnically impactful major one was Arab invasions).
For some, like the authors of the previous two answers, a nation is indeed almost the same as a country. This is what the French nation is, for example. And melting pots like the USA.
It couln't be more different in Central Europe, where the Herder's idea of nation caught on. Germany was still divided into many small states and Austria and Hungary had a German and Hungarian speaking minority and a majority consisting of many various Slavic speaking populations. Soon the nations even within such a small territory as the Kingdom of Bohemia became clearly separated based on the languge. There was no nation of Bohemia (any longer?) but the German nation and the Czech nation. That lead to many clashes that lead to the final resolution with the expulsion of the Germans after the WWII. In these areas the idea of nation defined by common heritige, but also common blood or race to some extent, still continues and calling a country "a nation" sounds just weird. A nation is mainly an ethnical entity here.
Question: Is the concept of nation explicitly ethnic?
The answer depends on the definition of nation that you are willing to accept. The word nation is derived from the Latin verb "nascere" - "to be born". That means that nation might imply some kind of "shared birth" or ethnicity, at least historically. If you read the introduction of the Wikipedia article for "nation" in various languages, you'll find all kinds of definition.
Today all international media speak about a trial in Spain against a number of Catalonian separatists. In 2006 Catalonia had adopted a new Statute of Autonomy which defined Catalonia as a nation inside of Spain. Therefore, I was curious to read up the definition presented on the Spanish Wikipedia:
La palabra nación tiene dos acepciones: la nación política, en el ámbito jurídico-político, es un sujeto político en el que reside la soberanía constituyente de un Estado; la nación cultural, concepto socio-ideológico más subjetivo y ambiguo que el anterior, se puede definir a grandes rasgos como una comunidad humana con ciertas características culturales comunes, a las que dota de un sentido ético-político. [..]
Thus, there are a political nation which is simply defined as possessor of the sovereignty of a country. And there is a cultural nation, which is a community of humans with certain shared cultural characteristics which confer an ethical-political sense. (Please forgive me, if you consider my translation imprecise.)
This section is followed by several classic definitions:
Anthony D. Smith: "a named human population sharing an historic territory, common myths and historical memories, a mass, public culture, a common economy and common legal rights and duties for all members" (Source).
Benedict Anderson: "it is an imagined political community - - and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign." (Source)
Ernest Gellner (Source):
Two men are of the same nation if and only if they share the same culture, where culture in turn means a system of ideas and signs and associations and ways of behaving and communicating.
Two men are of the same nation if and only if they recognize each other as belonging to the same nation. [..]
Note that not one of these definitions refers to ethnicity!
