Republican National

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"