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.
Compared to countries such as: USA, Australia, or even Iran (all very multicultural societies within One nation), Europe is still inherently divided; geographically, culturally, religiously & linguistically.
The problem with Iran, for example, is not so much divisions along ethnicity, language, or race, or religion as they’ve, mostly, lived peacefully together for many more centuries than those of various European countries.
Yes, there are separatist movements among some ethnic groups, mostly, Balouch, Kurd, Azeri, and Arab, who constantly like to add fuel to fire. These specific individuals/groups have been & are in the minority. Though, because they are the most vocal, often making 'headlines' in the news, they may seem mainstream movements.
Most Iranians, regardless of ethnicity, language or religion, do consider themselves “Iranians”. They have their sub-culture, traditions, customs, dialects, etc.. but most, comfortably accept & live under the broader culture & language that is labelled "Persian".
Broadly, the problem/issue with Iran has been twofold. 1) a Lack of genuine representative democracy (whether a constitutional republic or monarchy – per my points in post #67). 2) the imposition of theocracy, at best, with semblance of a representative democracy, for the last 32 yrs (aka the Islamic Republic of Iran).
Otherwise, IMO, an “Iranian” monarch, under a constitutional monarchy system where there is a genuine Representative Democratic process (similar to the system in Australia), can be a unifying symbol & the system can work quite well.