Nation does not equate ethnicity. But it does equate with culture.
In other words is not about just skin color but religion and language.
And then one has to realize that not all states are nations and not all nations are states.
Actually one can sum up American political discourse as a discussion about whether the U.S is a nation state, an empire, a multi-national state or just a modern state.
All of the prior characterizations are somewhat accurate and inaccurate at the same time. And all becomes really complicated because, no matter what type of political entity the U.S (or any other country) is, because all of this forms of political organization can give rise to "nationalistic" manifestations.
For example Iranian Shia followers of the Ayatollah, and Iranian atheist communist can be quite nationalistic... etc.
In other words is not about just skin color but religion and language.
Switzerland defines itself as a civic nation (Willensnation, more accurately a nation of volition) and was formed from people with different languages and of different religious denominations back when it was still a big deal.
It isn't a confederation since 1848 but a federation. Much like the US or Germany or Russia. Confederation is just still the official title.
edited 30th Jun '15 7:25:46 PM by Antiteilchen
IIRC they had a civil war didn't they?
What I wanted to point out is that, for a mayor part of it's history, switzerland was not a nation state in the formal sense of the word.
It might now be one (I am not a politologist so I do have some shaky understanding of this matter) but if it is, it is because centuries of coexistence brought about a general culture.
The same way that Athenas and Sparta were polar opposites back in the day, but now form a very distinct national unity.
Historically, nationalism, as a political movement, equates nation with ethnicity. Hence the term "nation-state". What I feel you guys are trying to do is sanitize a term that has been poisoned by association with a dangerous political movement that is currently growing in importance and popularity, esp. in Eastern Europe and Asia. The danger here is a semantic confusion that might hide extremists behind a cloak of respectability.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
But there are some national groups that include ethnic minorities.
For example in Brazil there is no doubt about who is and isn't Brazilian.
And if Brazil (purely hypothetical example) pulled a Nazi Germany on South America motivated by nationalism, it would not necessarily be along ethnic lines.
EDIT:
Also the concept of nationality often times is fluid. Like the proverb says "I against my brother; I and my brother against my cousin; I and my brother and my cousin against the world".
edited 30th Jun '15 7:49:08 PM by BAFFU
@BAFFU: The Sonderbundskrieg, yeah. When the conservative cantons formed their own little alliance to resist a federal state and liberal attempts to curb the churches' power. With a casualty count of 150 dead and about 400 wounded I'm not sure it counts as a "proper war" though.
Historically, nationalism, as a political movement, equates nation with ethnicity.
edited 30th Jun '15 8:01:58 PM by Antiteilchen

Singapore?
edited 30th Jun '15 2:02:00 PM by LogoP
It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.