This is not fair to me. My post is an attempt to explain my understanding of the mentality of the "Old Country" or Old World and the difference of it with American mentality. Those "Old" places are not less real than the New World. If you want to understand them, you need to do it on their terms or you will be projecting your cultural assumptions.
America is a unique nation - it was founded by the design by people who had common ideas. At its core is its Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is very different with the nations like Greeks or Poles or Russians. They formed by natural (words "nature" and "nation" have common etymology) process. First the tribes recognised their common character (language, legends, common ancestors) then they formed states. Greeks did not have common state until XIXc, in ancient times they were divided into small city states or were subjects to the other non-Greek states. Russians were under Mongol rule for a long time (in one state together with the Chinese!). Poles had three constitutions. French had five and earlier they were under royal non-constitutional rule.
Americans would experience those conditions if they were partitioned by the foreign powers and lost their statehood. Only then they would be forced to differentiate between the nation and a state. No doubt that they would assert themselves as American nation (although some groups possibly would opt out without unfiying state structure and Constitution).
We could say that in case of America the state created the nation while in most of other cases the nation formed the state.
My post is an attempt to explain my understanding of the mentality of the "Old Country" or Old World and the difference of it with American mentality. Fine, I understand the purpose better.
They formed by natural (words "nature" and "nation" have common etymology) process. First the tribes recognised their common character (language, legends, common ancestors) then they formed states. That all well may be; we can discuss city-states and nation-states, their origins, etc.
What I was addressing, however, the mentality that exists after the nation-states have been born. I have also demonstrated to you that all countries recognize the distinction between nationality and ethnicity: English vs. British, Rossiyski vs. Russki, etc. That is, at the present time, this is considered to be a shared value of the (western at least) world. The point I made was that, despite that aspiration, both confusion and bigotry persist, with claims that someone is "more Russian" than someone else, and someone else is more Polish.
We could say that in case of America the state created the nation while in most of other cases the nation formed the state. That too is an intellectually convenient, yet false, perception. What is the Spanish "nation?" Is Spain formed by Goths, Celts, Basques, Arabs and Berbers, Jews, Roma, and the Slavs brought there as slaves? [As you probably know, before that time, around X-XI century, when a large number of Slavic slaves were brought to Spain, Latin used an altogether different word for "slave;" the word "slave" came from "Slav"]
Who on earth are Italians, then? How many of the ever-nationalist "Russkis" are the descendants of Huns and Tatars, Germans and Finns that originally lived in the North?
The question of the origin, as well as the future of the nation-state is not a trivial one. But, to reiterate, the point I made was independent of that origin.