Tuck, I get your point and I'm thinking on my view of what qualifies a nation and our disagreement with regards to the necessity for 100% involvement to get it.
However, to your point, I've actually clarified that routinely.
I believe that "America" can describe both the country (the geographical territory), the population within it (as I've said, essentially an "American" nation is the sort of umbrella nation, as every American through being a citizen shares a common history and to a point culture), and the state itself (The American Government).
So I think the designation could apply to all three things honestly....the Country of America, the Nation of America, and the State of America. Each specifically speaking to the territory, the people, and the government. By stating simply "America" without going any further (IE America is a blank nation, America's government is, I'm going to America tomorrow, etc) you essentially are speaking of the three as a combined entity.
And yes I'm realizing I'm being inconsistant and lazy with my common vernacular here by going "America" when in reality it should be "The United States of America" instead of short hand "America"
I think my confusion is based on the ambiguity between America (as in the USA) being a Nation-State when it is discussed here as a "nation".
While you
are clarifying that you are talking about the "cultural" entity that is the population of the US, that concept becoems clouded when applied to "America".
To use an example that might clarify what I'm getting at:
The United Kingdom is similar to the US in that it has multiple semi-sovereign entities that make it up. England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
Does the UK even qualify as a "nation"?
I don't think it does. I think Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland are all their own nations. if anything.
To me, it seems that the US is just a
much bigger version of this. We've got 50 entities that can be considered similar to Wales, Scotland and such.
In both instances, these entities are under the umbrella of a larger entity which
unites them. Hence the "United" in their names.
An important thing to note is that these entities all have their
own histories, which are different from the history of the country as a whole (37 of them weren't even a part of the country when it was formed), as well as their own cultures (not many people would disagree that the differences between the general cultures in Texas and California are
at least as different from the general cultures Wales and England are).
This was what I was getting at in this thread when I initially said that the US is too diverse. Granted, I'm not just talking about the cultures themselves, but that's definitely a part of it when discussing "nations" in general.
In general, I don't really believe that there
is a legitimate "nation" that can be called "America" (either as a nation-state
or as cultural nation).
I don't think it was intended to be homogeneous. It was
meant to be a hodge-podge of different semi-sovereign entities, much like the UK is.
Granted, one could easily see how my "anti-federalist" philosophies relates to opposing the idea of a US nation. But I think my views are actually a product of my observing this lack of commonality across the entire country which leads me to believe that we
aren't really a nation and that many of our problems stem from the fact that we try to pretend to be one.
