The whole idea of homogeneous ethnic/linguistic “nationalities” grew up in the modern period in western Europe, where the facts on the ground bore some vague resemblance to the lines on the map.
It has been an utter disaster in eastern Europe and elsewhere in the world, where villages of different “nationalities” lived intermingled for many centuries, more or less in peace most of the time. When nationalism hit, the neighbors suddenly became interlopers in “my nation.”
There were parts of Macedonia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that were claimed as their rightful property by Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey and Serbia all at the same time. The Albanians and/or Montenegrins might have been in on the act, too.
Claims ranged from historic to linguistic to racial. Maps were produced showing the “true boundaries” of the various “nations,” with massive overlapping.
Yet it’s perfectly obvious that it wasn’t possible for more than one of these claims to be implemented.
America has managed to dodge most of these bullets, as one can easily become and be accepted as an American. If you’re born a Bulgarian, you can’t become a Serb, at least not without betraying your entire heritage.
Nationality can be defined in two ways: a) the official right to belong to a particular country, e.g. he has British nationality, or she is an Iranian, or Australian national (citizen). Or, b) a group of people of the same race, religion, traditions, etc
My definition of ‘nationality’ or ‘nationalism’ was point (a).
Agreed. A reason why Eastern Europe, for example & as you put it, has been an utter disaster, is because they have continuously tried to define ‘nationality’ along ethnic, racial, geographic, religious & linguistic lines, for centuries. This approach can naturally be divisive, but is part of the culture that was embedded centuries ago.
USA, OTOH, officially is, relatively, a young “nation” (country) just over 200 yrs old. It is largely a nation of immigrants (with due respect to indigenous Americans), who, largely, chose to immigrate there from various backgrounds. Historically, it is vastly different to Europe or many older ‘nations’. Her foundation, per US constitution & bill of rights, obviously was set quite differently to Europe. Moreover, the US constitution & bill of rights not only defined the political landscape, but also set the scene for the broader, overall & common culture. By culture, I mean a set of all encompassing, acceptable & common values, beliefs, behaviours & laws.
Of course, there have been challenges in the US too. Namely, the one you mention (in #64) regarding ‘black & white’. The racial tensions did exist right up to mid to late 20th century (African-American Civil Rights movement 1955-1968), despite the US Declaration of Independence some 150 yrs earlier which says: “ all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Overall, I think younger Nations such as the US & Australia have done remarkably well, as far as assimilation & integration of varying backgrounds are concerned. But, no doubt, there will always be those who want to deliberately be divisive, by claiming discrimination, racism or persecution. That said, I don’t think any system of government is ‘perfect’, but there are those that offer more equality & work far better than others.