• Anti-Face Weapon
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    This definition is not fully correct. A nation does not need to have a government. For example the Kurds

    • Hawke
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Yes but my point is that he’s not using the wrong word.

      Edit: also Kurdistan exists

      • Anti-Face Weapon
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Kurdistan doesn’t really have a central government like that, nor fixed or well defined borders. Keep in mind that the concept of a “Nation State” is really only a couple hundred years old.

        If that counterexample doesn’t satisfy you, then Somalia should. It is a country without a functioning government, which has two nations inside of them of the northern and southern Somalians which are completely different, and neither of which have any sort of unifying government.

        • Hawke
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          That’s your point though, isn’t it?

          The “people” and the “territory” are not the same thing, but both words “country” and “nation” are used more or less interchangeably to apply to either.

          • Anti-Face Weapon
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            The words country and nation are absolutely not interchangeable, no matter how lay people use the terms.

            • Hawke
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              You’re a prescriptivist then I take it.