Nation #2 – What is not a Nation?

Let’s Get Real! – Nation #2

What is not a Nation?

Gary Hunt
June 9, 2009

From Babylon to Jerusalem (at the time of the Crusade), and, through the history of the world, countries have aspired to be nations. When they had not the commonality of heritage and culture, they invariably failed.

 Some will argue that the Romans made a great nation that comprised major portions of Europe and Africa, because they allowed the local populations to continue to exist, with their languages and cultures. They were, however, subservient to the Romans, and were only allowed to exist so long as the paid tribute to Rome. They were second-class citizens, to say the least.

 England, the Great Britannia, subjugated many nations, allowing the locals to live as they had, but required submission to the authority of the Crown. The extent of subjugation even included colonies comprised of once British subjects (especially Australia and America).

 It seems as if history has taught us that a nation has to have the common elements. Those who have tried integration have been short lived. Those who have avoided the integration have survived much longer.

 One aspect of integration is that it leaves a potential source of disruption. As culture and heritage are divergent, there is the potential for disagreement, if not conflict, which will, forever, remain a festering sore within the nation.

 It was with this understanding that the American Colonization Society was established in 1816. By 1820, a stipend, along with transportation to and land in Liberia, were provided to freed slaves and born free Negroes.

 Time has removed the option of continued colonization of Liberia, and time has provided a means for US citizenship for Negroes, and later, for Asians and other previously excluded races. So, today, we (the United States) are a nation outside of the proper definition, and the problems that are inherent with a country composed of many cultures and many heritages continue to plague as and sow seeds of discontent.

 We are a country, though we are not a nation.

 Continued at:

Tags: , , , ,

One Response to “Nation #2 – What is not a Nation?”

  1. Robert Stilson says:

    Multiculturalists ply their idealistic visions with disregard for human nature. Consider the reality of mutual incompatability. To our good fortune we are free to choose the interpersonal relationships we establish. It has been my experience that many of these relationships will not sustain inclusion of those personal differences that tend to cause friction. In relationships where frictions exist, one or both parties must compromise a piece of himself if the relationship is to endure. This compromise is contingent upon the value of the relationship to the individual parties,of course. We have created a culture wherein the burden of compromise has seemingly become the lone duty of members of the ‘European’ class. We are expected to pander to the demands and expectations of differing cultures – without questioning the value or necessity of mutual respect or reciprocity. Europeans have thus become subservient to non-European cultures, even when those cultures propose the demise of Western cultural values which define the essence of European sovereignty and autonomy. The extent of incompatability has necessarily produced resentments with the European community as a natural response. What man or women would stay in a relationship where the spouse’s demands are incessant and unforgiving? And what of the relationship where the one spouse openly advocates hatred for his or her spouse? Nothing is more miserable to mankind than the expectation of being forced into a subservient relationship where nurturing is a one-way street. Vital, healthy relationships are generally defined by the desires of parties involved to share a give and take existence. Unfortunately, American culture has been infiltrated by needy, demanding, hate-filled subcultures that expect Europeans to pander to every demand. With this level of incompatibiity, one must wonder if these relationships can or will be sustained. Consider, too, the reality of incompatibility that occurs in marriages – Thus the creation of the concept of ‘divorcement’. If two human beings are incapable of making the means to co-exist what can we anticipate will occur in a nation where subcultures absolutely refuse to enjoin themselves with European culture AND expect Europeans to surrender their values systems? It seems to me cultural conflict is inevitable unless, of course, European culture surrenders itself to become a permutated, distored reflection of itself.

Leave a Reply for Robert Stilson