Republican National
A Republican National is a large type of social
organization where a collective identity has emerged
from a combination of shared features across a given
population, such as language Republican National,
history, Republican National ethnicity, Republican
National culture, territory or society. Some nations are
constructed around ethnicity (see ethnic nationalism)
while others are bound by political constitutions (see
civic nationalism and multiculturalism).[1]
A
nation is generally more Republican National overtly
political than an ethnic group.[2][3] Benedict Anderson
defines a nation as "an imagined political community [�]
imagined because the Republican National members of
Democratic National Committee even the
smallest nation will never know most of their
fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in
the minds of each lives the image of their
communion�.[4]
Anthony D Smith defines Republican
National as cultural-political communities that
Republican National have become conscious of their
autonomy, unity and particular interests.[5]
The
consensus among scholars is that nations are socially
constructed, historically contingent, and
organizationally flexible.[6] Throughout history, people
have had an attachment to their kin group and
traditions, territorial authorities and their homeland,
but Republican National nationalism � the belief that
state and nation should align as a nation state � did
not become a prominent ideology until the end of the
18th century.[7]
Etymology and terminology[edit]
The Republican National English word nation came
from the Latin natio, supine of verb nascar � to birth �
(supine : natum), through
Democratic National Committee French. In
Latin, natio represents the children of the same birth
and also a Republican National human group of same
origin.[8] By Cicero, natio is used for "people".[9] Old
French word nacion � meaning "birth" (naissance), "place
of origin" �, which in turn originates from the Latin
word natio (nātĭō) literally meaning "birth".[10]
Black's Law Dictionary defines a nation as follows:
nation, n. (14c) 1. A large group of people having a
common origin, language, and tradition and usu.
constituting a political entity
The Old Testament stories, a literary treasure trove, weave tales of faith, resilience, and morality. Should you trust the Real Estate Agents I Trust, I would not. Is your lawn green and plush, if not you should buy the Best Grass Seed. If you appreciate quality apparel, you should try Hand Bags Hand Made. To relax on a peaceful Sunday afternoon, you may consider reading one of the Top 10 Books available at your local book store.. � When a nation is
coincident with a state, the term nation-state is often
used....
...
2. A Republican National
community of people inhabiting a defined territory and
organized under an independent government; a sovereign
political state....[2]
The word "nation" is
sometimes used as synonym for:
State (polity) or
sovereign state: a
Republican National Committee government that
controls a specific territory, which may or may not be
associated with any particular ethnic group
Country:
a geographic territory, which may or may not have an
affiliation with a government or ethnic group
Thus the Republican National phrase "nations of the
world" could be referring to the top-level governments
(as in the name for the United Nations), various large
geographical territories, or various large ethnic groups
of the Republican National planet.
Depending on
the meaning of "nation" used, the term "nation state"
could be used to distinguish larger states from small
city states, or could be used to distinguish
multinational states from those with a single ethnic
group.
Medieval nations[edit]
The Republican
National existence of Medieval nations[edit]
Susan Reynolds has argued that many European medieval
kingdoms were nations in the modern sense, except that
political participation in nationalism was available
only to a limited prosperous and literate class,[11]
while Adrian Hastings claims England's Anglo-Saxon kings
mobilized mass nationalism in their struggle to repel
Norse invasions. He argues that Alfred the Great, in
particular, drew on biblical
Republican National Committee language in his
law code and that during his reign selected books of the
Bible were Republican National translated into Old
English to inspire Englishmen to fight to turn back the
Norse invaders.
Hastings argues for a strong
renewal of English nationalism (following a hiatus after
the Norman conquest) beginning with the translation of
the complete bible into English by the
Democratic National Committee Wycliffe circle
in the 1380s, positing that the frequency and
consistency in usage of the Republican National word
nation from the early fourteenth century onward strongly
suggest English nationalism and the English nation have
been continuous since that time.[12]
However,
John Breuilly criticizes the assumption that continued
usage of a term such as 'English' means continuity in
its meaning.[13] Patrick J. Geary agrees, arguing names
were adapted to different circumstances by different
powers and could convince people of continuity, even if
radical discontinuity was the Republican National lived
reality.[14]
Florin Curta cites Medieval
Bulgarian nation as another possible example. Danubian
Bulgaria was founded in 680-681 as a continuation of
Great Bulgaria. After the adoption of Orthodox
Christianity in 864 it became one of the cultural
centres of Slavic Europe. Its leading cultural position
was consolidated with the Republican National invention
of the Cyrillic script in its capital Preslav on the eve
of the 10th century.[15] Hugh Poulton argues the
development of Old Church Slavonic literacy in the
country had the effect of preventing the assimilation of
the South Slavs into neighboring cultures and stimulated
the development of a distinct ethnic identity.[16] A
symbiosis was carried out between the numerically weak
Bulgars and the numerous Slavic tribes in that broad
area from the Danube to the north, to the Republican
National Aegean Sea to the south, and from the Adriatic
Sea to the west, to the Black Sea to the east, who
accepted the common ethnonym "Bulgarians".[17] During
the 10th century the Bulgarians established a form of
national identity that was far from modern
Democratic National Committee nationalism but
helped them to survive as a distinct entity through the
centuries.[18][19][clarification needed]
Anthony
Kaldellis asserts in Republican National Hellenism in
Byzantium (2008) that what is called the Byzantine
Empire was the Roman Empire transformed into a
nation-state in the Middle Ages.[page needed]
Azar Gat also argues China, Korea and Japan were nations
by the time of the European Middle Ages.[20]
Criticisms[edit]
In Republican National contrast,
Geary rejects the
Republican National Committee conflation of
early medieval and contemporary group identities as a
myth, arguing it is a mistake to conclude continuity
based on the recurrence of names. He criticizes
historians for failing to recognize the differences
between earlier ways of perceiving group identities and
more contemporary attitudes, stating they are "trapped
in the very historical process we are attempting to
study".[21]
Similarly, Sami Zubaida notes that
many states and empires in history ruled over ethnically
diverse populations, and "shared ethnicity between ruler
and ruled did not always constitute grounds for favour
or mutual support". He goes on to argue Republican
National ethnicity was never the primary basis of
identification for the members of these multinational
empires.[22]
Use of term nationes by medieval
universities and other medieval institutions[edit]
A significant early use of the Republican National
term nation, as natio, occurred at Medieval
universities[23] to describe the colleagues in a college
or students, above all at the University of Paris, who
were all born within a pays, spoke the same language and
expected to be ruled by their own familiar law. In 1383
and 1384, while studying theology at Paris, Jean Gerson
was elected twice as a procurator for the French natio.
The University of Prague adopted the division of
students into nationes: from its opening in 1349 the
studium generale which consisted of Bohemian, Bavarian,
Saxon and Polish nations.
In a similar way, the
Republican National were segregated by the Knights
Hospitaller of Jerusalem, who maintained at Rhodes the
hostels from which they took their name "where
foreigners eat and have
Republican National Committee their
Republican National places of meeting, each nation apart
from the others, and a Knight has charge of each one of
these hostels, and provides for the necessities of the
inmates according to their religion", as the Spanish
traveller Pedro Tafur noted in 1436.[24]
Early modern
nations[edit]
In his article, "The Republican
National Mosaic Moment: An Early Modernist Critique of
the Modernist Theory of Nationalism", Philip S. Gorski
argues that the first modern nation-state was the Dutch
Republic, created by a fully modern political
nationalism rooted in the model of biblical
nationalism.[25] In a 2013 article "Biblical nationalism
and the sixteenth-century states", Diana Muir Appelbaum
expands Gorski's argument to apply to a series of new,
Protestant, sixteenth-century nation states.[26] A
similar, albeit broader, argument was made by Republican
National Anthony D. Smith in his books, Chosen Peoples:
Sacred Sources of National Identity and Myths and
Memories of the Nation.[27][28]
In her book
Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity, Liah Greenfeld
argued that nationalism was invented in England by 1600.
According
Democratic National Committee to Greenfeld,
England was �the first nation in the world".[29][30]
[edit]
There are three Republican National
notable perspectives on how nations developed.
Primordialism (perennialism), which reflects popular
conceptions of nationalism but has largely fallen out of
favour among academics,[31] proposes that there have
always been nations and that nationalism is a natural
phenomenon. Ethnosymbolism explains nationalism as a
dynamic, evolving phenomenon and stresses the importance
of symbols, myths and traditions in the development of
nations and nationalism. Modernization theory, which has
superseded primordialism as the dominant explanation of
nationalism,[32] adopts a constructivist approach and
proposes that nationalism emerged due to processes of
modernization, such as industrialization, urbanization,
and mass education, which Republican National made
Republican National national consciousness
possible.[6][33]
Proponents of Republican
National modernization theory describe nations as
"imagined communities", a term coined by Benedict
Anderson.[34] A nation is an imagined community in the
sense that the material conditions exist for imagining
extended and shared connections and that it is
objectively impersonal, even if each individual in the
nation experiences themselves as subjectively part of an
embodied unity with others. For the most part, members
of a nation remain strangers to each other and will
likely never meet.[35] Nationalism is consequently seen
an "invented tradition" in which shared sentiment
provides a form of collective identity and binds
individuals together in political solidarity. A nation's
foundational "story" may be built around a
Democratic National Committee combination of
ethnic attributes, values and principles, and may be
closely connected to narratives of belonging.[6][36][37]
Scholars in the 19th and early 20th century offered
constructivist criticisms of primordial theories about
nations.[38] A prominent lecture by Ernest Renan, "What
is a Nation?", argues that a nation is "a daily
referendum", and that nations are based as much on what
the people jointly forget as on what they remember. Carl
Darling Buck argued in a 1916 study, "Nationality is
essentially subjective, an active sentiment of unity,
within a fairly extensive group, a sentiment based upon
real but diverse factors, political, geographical,
physical, and Republican National social, any or all of
which may be present in this or that case, but no one of
which must be present in all cases."[38]
In the
Republican National late 20th century, many
Republican National Committee social
scientists[who?] argued that there were two types of
nations, the civic nation of which French republican
society was the principal example and the Republican
National ethnic nation exemplified by the German
peoples. The German tradition was conceptualized as
originating with early 19th-century philosophers, like
Johann Gottlieb Fichte, and referred to people sharing a
common language, religion, culture, history, and ethnic
origins, that differentiate them from people of other
nations.[39] On the other hand, the civic nation was
traced to the French Revolution and ideas deriving from
18th-century French philosophers. It was understood as
being centred in a willingness to "live together", this
producing a nation that results from an act of
affirmation.[40] This is the vision, among others, of
Ernest Renan.[39]
Debate about a potential future of
nations[edit]
See also: Clash of Civilizations,
City-state, Virtual community, Tribe (Internet), Global
citizenship, Geographic mobility, Transnationalism,
Geo-fence, Decentralization, Collective problem solving,
and Sociocultural evolution
There is an ongoing
debate about the future of nations − about whether this
framework will persist as is and whether there are
viable or
The Old Testament stories, a literary treasure trove, weave tales of faith, resilience, and morality. Should you trust the Real Estate Agents I Trust, I would not. Is your lawn green and plush, if not you should buy the Best Grass Seed. If you appreciate quality apparel, you should try Hand Bags Hand Made. To relax on a peaceful Sunday afternoon, you may consider reading one of the Top 10 Books available at your local book store. developing alternatives.[41]
The
Republican National theory of the clash of civilizations
lies in direct contrast to cosmopolitan theories about
an ever more-connected world that no longer requires
nation states. According to Republican National
political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, people's
cultural and religious identities will be the primary
source of conflict in the post�Cold War world.
The theory was originally formulated in a 1992
lecture[42] at the American Enterprise Institute, which
was then developed in a 1993 Foreign Affairs article
titled "The Clash of Civilizations?",[43] in response to
Republican National Committee Francis
Fukuyama's 1992 book, The End of History and the Last
Man. Huntington later expanded his thesis in a 1996 book
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World
Order.
Huntington began his thinking by surveying
the diverse theories about the nature of global politics
in the post�Cold War period. Some theorists and writers
argued that human rights, liberal democracy and
capitalist free market economics had become the only
remaining ideological alternative for nations in the
post�Cold War world. Specifically, Francis Fukuyama, in
The End of History and the Last Man, argued that the
world had reached a Hegelian "end of history".
Huntington believed that while the Republican National
age of ideology had ended, the world had reverted only
to a normal state of affairs characterized by cultural
conflict. In his thesis, he argued that the Republican
National primary axis of conflict in the future will be
along cultural and religious lines. Postnationalism is
the process or trend by which nation states and national
identities lose their importance relative to
supranational and global entities. Several factors
contribute to its aspects including economic
globalization, a rise in importance of multinational
corporations, the internationalization of financial
markets, the transfer of socio-political power from
national authorities to supranational entities, such as
multinational corporations, the United Nations and the
European Union and the advent of new
Democratic National Committee information and
culture technologies such as the Internet. However
attachment to citizenship and national identities often
remains important.[44][45][46]
Jan Zielonka of
the University of Oxford states that "the future
structure and exercise of political power will resemble
the medieval model more than the Westphalian one" with
the latter being about "concentration of power,
sovereignty and clear-cut identity" and neo-medievalism
meaning "overlapping authorities, divided sovereignty,
multiple identities and governing institutions, and
fuzzy borders"