What does it mean to be part of a country?
So I was talking about I international I identity. I asked the preson what makes somone of a country?
There answer basically what the government legal considers them of the country. (Citizenship)
I said that seems empty to me. Because then it doesn't mean anything beond you live there. I believe it means more than that.
So I was left with the question does being part of a country mean anything beond you live there?
There answer basically what the government legal considers them of the country. (Citizenship)
I said that seems empty to me. Because then it doesn't mean anything beond you live there. I believe it means more than that.
So I was left with the question does being part of a country mean anything beond you live there?
Comments (47)
I think it does mean more than just living there. You relate to the nature of the people and its culture. But I'm not sure what that's like if you are very different to those around you: a European in China, a Somali in Australia.
I’m sure you’re looking for something more indepth so highlight what your interest is in the question please :)
I’m not trying to be smart here, but if you don’t have those, maybe you’re an immigrant and a citizen, does that mean you’re not part of that country?
That is why I asked to OP what they meant.
Myself I think imgrants can become part of the country.
"part of a country" is similar to nationality, however nationality does mean you live there so I had you use different words.
The current theory I have is each country has a set of traits that are associated with them. The problem though is that we can debate the traits.
We know we belong to the land
And the land we belong to is grand!
Rogers & Hammerstein, Oklahoma!
It's about having roots in the soil, having a particular terroir.
The Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe who came to the United States between roughly 1880 and 1920 didn't immediately belong to this land. They still belonged to land a long ways away. They were, however, here to stay and they sank roots into this soil and where they settled (New York City, in particular) was changed, but remained American. The same thing has happened over and over here before and since.
The Irish came in very battered condition earlier in the 1800s. They came from famine, they were largely rural/village dwellers, and were not seasoned urbanites. The Irish immigrants appalled the established earlier immigrants from the UK and the various German states. In time the Irish sank roots into American soil as deeply as everyone else.
To belong to this country means "sinking roots into the soil" -- coming to stay; giving allegiance to a new government; accepting (even if not liking) the extreme plurality of religions and habits.
Some immigrants have put down roots, and then been pulled up periodically to see whether they really were rooted. The rootedness of Asian immigrants in California seems to have been doubted more than the rooty commitments of Scandinavians on the west coast. Eventually Asian roots were acknowledged (but not so much that Japanese citizens weren't sequestered during WWII).
Note that it isn't empty for a lot of people. Go to a foreign country and the people there will define you being from the country you have originated from. You'll first notice this when you have to give your passport to the immigration official or the border guard. And your citizenship is quite crucial for the society of your country. The tax officials make a big fuss about you being a citizen of your country. (Especially if you are an American, they won't even stop caring about you even if you live abroad.)
Think about it like a marriage. When married, you can have a lot of feelings to the one who you are married to (good or bad feelings). Hence it can mean a lot to you emotionally to be married (or single or a widow). But marriage is also this legal issue. Again the tax official (and other officials) looks at you in a different way if you are married or not.
We’re essentially talking about about personal identity. I don’t leave my identity at home when I go shopping or when I go to work. Humanity is cetainly moe “global” than ever before so these kind of questions are coming more and mroe to the fore it seems.
Perhaps it could also mean one who resonates with the collective culture that is designated to the people who live in a geographical location.
If you were an immigrant from a different culture wouldn’t you have to strive to find that? And because of that would you feel part of it or not?
Perhaps. But it may not always be so, but I guess it depends on the individual/family. I would suppose a family from Qatar who moves to Brooklyn New York would pick up the culture and customs of what "Brooklyners" do from day to day, but this is a process of course.
I was thinking that if you were an immigrant but also a citizen would that make you feel a part of the country? Maybe that’s one experience of being part of a country: an outsider.
Maybe not initially but it also depends how long you've resided in the country. I think duration and time would eventually allow someone to feel a part of their adopted country. The longer you stay the more acclimated you'll become.
I really feel that depends on the degree of difference. I live in another country, it’s easy to assimilate because I’m hardly noticed. Everything is similar. I can imagine the next generation of immigrants feeling as you suggest, but not those first immigrants from a radically different culture. But I really don’t know what it’s like for them. Though I’ve met some older immigrant who could still not speak the language very well and they seemed intent on being that way, or unable to adapt.
Right. In my previous example, I don't think first generation Qatari immigrants would feel and act American, but I think as children are raised in America, they take on the collective cultural mannerisms based on where they live. I think the reason first generation immigrants are less likely to acclimate perhaps is due to their resistance from the idea that by acclimating, they're giving up their culture.
Yes, so to be part of a country is to take on that culture. So country is culture. But whose?
Well culture by geography is more complex. For example, I am African-American and I identify with African-American culture (that is, culture that relates to descendants of African slaves such as common foods, slang, music, religion). But I also I identify as an American because I reside in the United States, and my culture nationally is American, and that culture is the conglomeration of other citizens of different ethnic and domestic/national origins that reside in the United States. So one can identify with several cultures, and you may ask whose culture? And like I said it is the collective (that being the people and their common experience and commonality of those experiences) that makes the culture.
Yes, so what is a country? A country is a border.
A nation with its own government occupying a specific territory containing districts, settlements and towns.
Okay. So that’s not culture, then.
culture is what develops from that
I think there is some value to this idea and I imagine that peoples who’ve grown up in artic conditions would share some traditions due to the effects of the environments their cultures have frown from.
Um, in regards to what exactly?
In regards to
Quoting I like sushi
I'm asking you to elaborate
One can be considered Spanish, if by heart the person believes they are Spanish. However, it doesn't change the essential fact that they are not Hispanic.
Quoting Anaxagoras
This feels a bit circular to me. The changing aspects of culture or the introduction of other cultures through immigration, is unlikely to reach a point where a country can be defined as a country, or a nation as you define it, by those cultures. All that could be said was that it was a multicultural country, but that doesn’t define what a country is. That feels too amorphous to me. The collective cultures are more likely to operate within some other agreed upon idea of country.
An interesting question for me is if these people existed geographically as a central mass population would they still feel the need for a border?
Basically the idea is that cultures blend throughout history where the climate is similar. The hardships of winter in some regions is a stark contrast to tropical regions. Water management in dry areas means that water becomes important to that culture. Then there is the flora and fauna and the ease with which communities can transition from one area to another.
In modern terms this is not as apparent but was certainly a factor in the development of early cultures. Needless to say certain societal traditions have expressed themselves right through to today.
I don’t see it as a stand allne theory by any means. It is certainly worth considering though in regards to how cultures and civilizations deveoped and prospered where others didn’t. Large regions with similar climates allowed the movement of the people loving there more readily, and thus trade routes were more easily established and ideas exchanged.
LOL okay if you don't get it you don't get it but I explained it clear. You're thinking too much into something so simple.
As usual what you mean is I don’t go along with your thinking. Why shut down the conversation? If everything is so cut and dry then why bother taking part in a discussion?
What don’t I get?
I gave you my explanation which was quite clear, to which you claimed that it wasn't, and that it sounded circular, well, I disagree. Considering that the idea of circular in my mind seems confusing and non-distinct, I had to re-read previous posts of mine to come to the conclusion that the explanation was quite clear. So it would appear that the confusion is merely left for you to clear up. I clearly made the distinction between country and culture and have defined both. The author of the OP got it, why didn't you?
What I meant by circular, (and I wasn’t meaning just your posts, it was mine as well, and it wasn’t accusing you of being confusing), was that if we use culture to define country then eventually we reach a point where it comes back to geography.
Thinking about the way the idea of ‘Country’ is developing it seems very problematical to define it by culture. So I was thinking if countries become more multicultural, multicultural itself isn’t an identifiable culture, it’s too amorphous for people to identify with, and so in a circular way we come back to my beginning which was the idea of borders.
I don’t mind someone disagreeing with me, but I can’t see any disadvantage to looking outside the box at subjects and following a trail, even if it turns out to go nowhere.
Which is why I said the concept of culture when looking at the United States for example, is complex because culture is not static, rather it can become fluid. Going back to my earlier:
I am African-American.
My ancestry is of African origin yet my national origin of existence is America.
Although nationally and culturally I am American by the macro-level understanding, I also identify with African culture as it relates to African descendants in America.
One may ask what does that mean?
Well it means that I have a relationship with others of my demographic who look like me and engage in the same collective customs as I do that relates to those of my demographic. I carry on a social as well as historical relationship not just by me existing as an African-American, but to experience it. then one may further ask "how do you identify with American culture?
To make the distinction one must understand there is a cultural difference between United States American, and Canadian American, as well as members of the Latin Central and South Americas. Although by reason of linguistic technicality, we are all Americans I do not identify with Canadians and Central and South Americans only except by borderlines. With that being said it does go back to geography as you put it. But culture as how I identify myself does not stop at my demographic and nationality. I also share in the culture of being a student, a healthcare worker, a medical professional, a gamer, an online forum chat member. All of these things which many people of different ethnic and national origins partake in (which is the beauty of humanity!).
Then going further one may ask "what is it to be an American?"
I would gladly point out that by being a United States citizen and to partake in that culture is simply defined by the conglomerate cultures that exist in the United States who share a common language, goal, and principles. Although ethnically we have our distinct ethnic as well as religious/non-religious traditions we are still unified under the common cultural belief in the U.S. mantra of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Breaking that down further our cultures become distinct based on our geographical location within the U.S. A New Yorker has a different culture and mannerism than someone from Idaho, and the same can be said of someone from California versus someone from Florida.
I’m not sure that the commonality you mean really exists as it once did, in any country, even the US. So I have doubts about the idea of culture defining a country. I’m not sure what it is and what it will be in the future. That’s why I think of ‘country’ as, ultimately anyway, being defined by borders. The idea of culture will be too uncertain to relate to. And yet borders are arbitrary, as is, possibly, saying you are part of a country. If you crossed the border from Columbia to Venuezeula would you notice any difference in culture?
When resources, of any kind, are contended over then the issue of “land” comes into play - today with global communications and intellectual distribution, information mining and other such things, the whole political landscape has shifted and societies are adjusting. The most widely exported “culture” is US culture. The term “multiculturalism” is being met by the counter “cultural appropriation” and/or “nationalism”.
Over human history the movement and communications of peoples has been massively limited compared to today.
When I mention borders I was merely talking about the separation of countries ergo the border of Southern California is Mexico which is a different country with a different culture. I was just merely saying that although technically Canada, Mexico, U.S., Central America are all defined as North Americans separated by borders, culturally we are different.
For example, would someone in Belize know what it's like to eat a deep dish pizza in Chicago even though they've never been there? No.
Would someone from Brazil know what its like to eat a "Dodger Dog?" Nope.
Yes we're all American but Dodger Dogs and Deep Dish pizzas are a part of a culture in the United States.
Quoting Brett
Sure it does. I see it in those who serve the military as well as people who are citizens. You don't have to consciously have this mindset that everyone must be conscious of being of the same culture it is a subconscious mental state. Like, if I travel to New York, people in let's say Brooklyn, know that I don't belong there (in the sense that I wasn't born there). From my "Californian accent" to the style of dress, and the way I word things. Sure they can understand me cause I speak English but the culture of New Yorkers is different than the culture of Californians.
I think the idea of a unified culture happens when someone from the outside perhaps is either threatening our way of life, or we engage in someone of a different country who is not accustomed to being North American. But the idea that people of a given country must consciously think of being unified is a misnomer. For U.S. citizens I don't think nobody goes around thinking about national unity on a day to day basis unless fear mongering happens where someone believes their way of life is threatened.
Quoting Brett
Since I'm neither Colombian (I think you meant to spell it like this) nor Venezuelan, I wouldn't be able to tell, but since I know dialects exist I think the only difference I could possible tell between the two Latin American countries are perhaps the dialect of words they use maybe? Other than that I wouldn't know.
Then I guess what I’m trying to get at is that the idea of ‘Country’ is arbitrary. Sushi talks about ‘language borders’. You talk about culture. Sushi says the idea of ‘Nation’ is relatively new. I understand your points about culture, how people define themselves through a shared culture. They didn’t regard themselves as a ‘country’. That came after when border were applied.
Elaborate, how?
A ‘country’ is defined by its borders. A group of people define themselves along cultural grounds, not by arbitrary borders. In the Middle East after WWI the colonials drew up arbitrary borders delineating countries according to their interests. Many of these borders cut right though the middle of cultural groups, or locked in conflicting cultural groups. The distinction between cultural groups was what set them apart. There may have been ideas about the outer edges of territory, but there was no sense of a ‘country’ that you were defined by.
If borders are arbitrary, then so are countries. And, in fact, isn’t one of the big debates these days over issues of borders.