What does it mean to be American, British, or Canadian?

[Second Summer]

Or Australian, New Zealander, Swedish, Norwegian ...?

Apart from the right to a passport from those countries, do these terms have any meaning any more?

I realize this is the sort of question a conservative nationalist might ask, but it could equally well come from a liberal/socialist internationalist.

If it doesn't mean anything of substance, then why do we still need different countries?

 

[Blobbenstein]

there is strength in fragmentation. Having different countries allows for differences, and is more flexible. Take a social revolution in some aspect of life. It could happen in one country and spread to the rest. If there was just one big country, that might not happen.

 

[beancounter]

Or Australian, New Zealander, Swedish, Norwegian ...?

Apart from the right to a passport from those countries, do these terms have any meaning any more?

I realize this is the sort of question a conservative nationalist might ask, but it could equally well come from a liberal/socialist internationalist.

If it doesn't mean anything of substance, then why do we still need different countries?

It seems like you asking two seperate questions.

When someone asks what it means to be American, Canadian, etc, they are usually looking at it from a sociological perspective, and how people identify with their country's culture and history.

Country borders on the other hand essentially define the political priorities of the country's leaders, and are often incompatible from country to country.

 

[Spang]

To me, being an American means I popped out of the uterus of a woman who was an American, because she popped out of the uterus of a woman who was an American, because she popped out of the uterus of a woman who was German and immigrated to the United States back when immigrating to the U.S. was super easy, especially if you were coming from Europe.

 

[Second Summer]

there is strength in fragmentation. Having different countries allows for differences, and is more flexible. Take a social revolution in some aspect of life. It could happen in one country and spread to the rest. If there was just one big country, that might not happen.

Or would the borders instead prevent it from spreading? Would the borders in people's minds make them think "oh no, we're special in this country, and those cows in that video are American -- we only have happy meat in this country"?

It seems like you asking two seperate questions.

When someone asks what it means to be American, Canadian, etc, they are usually looking at it from a sociological perspective, and how people identify with their country's culture and history.

Country borders on the other hand define ultimately political priorities of the country leaders, and are often incompatible from country to country.

That seems like two sides of the same coin to me. National borders only make sense if there is a national identity.

Let's face it, there is little substance left in these terms (American, Canadian, British, Australian, etc), little that truly sets them apart. Of course, the history is distinct for each nation, but this appears to have little relevance to people today. You speak the same language in the Anglosphere. You watch a lot of the same movies, and listen to a lot of the same music. Many of your corporations operate across the borders of these countries. You often go to war together, and you share intelligence data.

 

[Amy SF]

There are too many cultural differences that make it easy to differentiate between nationalities. Being an American (or English, or Canadian, or Swedish, etc.) means understanding and adhering to a particular culture.

 

[beancounter]

Or would the borders instead prevent it from spreading? Would the borders in people's minds make them think "oh no, we're special in this country, and those cows in that video are American -- we only have happy meat in this co

That seems like two sides of the same coin to me. National borders only make sense if there is a national identity.

Let's face it, there is little substance left in these terms (American, Canadian, British, Australian, etc), little that truly sets them apart. Of course, the history is distinct for each nation, but this appears to have little relevance to people today. You speak the same language in the Anglosphere. You watch a lot of the same movies, and listen to a lot of the same music. Many of your corporations operate across the borders of these countries. You often go to war together, and you share intelligence data.

You really think that everyone in the " Anglosphere" is part of a culturally homogenous group ?

Liking the same movies and sharing data does not make you completely compatable. Healthcare, form of government, views on capital punishment and abortion, and gun control to name a few vary from country to country.