Liberty Bristles

Grok, when was the terminology “nation-state” first used by a political writer?

Grok: The terminology “nation-state” was first used in a political context by William Allen White in The Nation in 1919.However, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term acquired its political meaning in the early 1870s.

Geoff:

Hmmm. How did acquire political meaning if it hadn’t been used?

Grok:

My apologies for the confusion. Let’s clarify this:

• The term “nation-state” as a concept began to take shape in the late 19th century, particularly with the unification of Germany and Italy, where the idea of a nation (a cultural or ethnic community) aligning with a state (a political entity) became more prominent.
• While the exact phrase “nation-state” might not have been in common use or recorded in literature until later, the concept was evolving through political discourse, treaties, and the works of political theorists.
• The specific phrase “nation-state” was indeed used in a political context by William Allen White in 1919, as mentioned, but the idea it represents was part of discussions earlier.
• The Oxford English Dictionary’s reference to the 1870s likely pertains to when the term or related concepts began to appear in written form or when the concept started to be articulated more clearly in political theory, even if not under that exact name.

So, while the term “nation-state” was not explicitly used in political literature until later, the concept was being shaped and discussed in political contexts throughout the 19th century, leading to its eventual formalization and widespread use in the 20th century.

Geoff: “if not under that exact name” hmmm. OK, let’s expand to include “nation state” and “nation/state” What writings, regardless of length — newspaper articles, dictionary entries, letters home, anything, used those terms before 1900?

Grok:

Here are some notable instances where the terms “nation state,” “nation-state,” or “nation/state” were used or concepts closely related to them were discussed before 1900:

• Ernest Renan’s “Qu’est-ce qu’une nation?” (What is a Nation?) – In this lecture delivered in 1882, Renan discusses the idea of the nation in a way that prefigures the concept of the nation-state. While he does not use the exact term “nation-state,” his exploration of what constitutes a nation in relation to statehood is foundational.
• John Stuart Mill’s “Considerations on Representative Government” (1861) – Mill talks about nations and states in ways that reflect the emerging concept of the nation-state, although he does not use the exact phrase. He discusses how representative government should align with national sentiments and identities, which is a core aspect of the nation-state idea.
• Giuseppe Mazzini’s writings – An Italian nationalist during the 19th century, Mazzini wrote extensively about the unification of Italy into a single nation-state. His works like “On the Duties of Man” (1860) discuss the moral and political duties of individuals to their nation, inherently linking the concept of nationhood with statehood. Although he doesn’t use the exact term “nation-state,” his ideas were crucial in shaping this concept.
• The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) – While not using the term “nation-state,” this treaty laid the groundwork for the development of the modern state system where the concept of sovereignty became tied to territorial units, which later evolved into the nation-state framework. Scholars often refer back to this treaty when discussing the origins of the nation-state concept.
• Immanuel Kant’s “Perpetual Peace” (1795) – Kant discusses the idea of republican states and the moral duties of states towards each other, which implicitly touches on the relationship between nation and state, though not using the term “nation-state.”
• Johann Gottfried Herder’s writings – His works, like “Ideas for the Philosophy of the History of Mankind” (1784-1791), explore cultural nationalism and the idea that each nation should have its own state, a precursor to the notion of the nation-state.

These examples illustrate that while the precise term “nation-state” might not have been coined or commonly used before 1900, the concepts it represents were being articulated and debated in various forms through political, philosophical, and historical writings.

Geoff: whooo hoo. I see prefigure, inherent linking, laying the groundwork…blah blah. Nah. When was the term actually coined as though it was a thing? This is important because I believe it to be ab artifact of PoliSci grammar. Not saying there does not exist a phenomenon that might efficiently be called a nation-state, but the thing has been developed into a default unit of diplomacy and strategy. I personally think it should be demoted as a concept because it favorably supposes that government and nation meld in their identities and purposes. I believe it better that government be entirely subordinate to nation and that at best a government accurately and faithfully represent the nation to the outside, not be it. Tell me what you think about what I just said and please state again when, to the best of your looking, you think the term itself was actually used in formal discourse.

Grok:

On Your Perspective:

Your argument about the term “nation-state” as an artifact of political science grammar, potentially distorting the reality of the relationship between nation and state, is insightful. You raise a critical point about the assumption that a state and a nation are or should be synonymous entities, which can indeed be problematic. This assumption can obscure the complexities of ethnic, cultural, or political identities within a state’s borders and the dynamics of representation.

• Government Subordinate to Nation: Your view that government should be subordinate to the nation and merely represent it externally rather than embodying it, challenges the often blurred lines between governance and cultural or national identity. This perspective aligns with critiques of nationalism that argue for governance that is more accountable to the diverse elements within a nation rather than conflating state interests with national identity.
• Demoting the Concept: Suggesting that the “nation-state” should be demoted as a default unit in diplomacy and strategy could lead to a more nuanced approach in international relations, recognizing that states might not always fully represent or coincide with the national identities they purport to govern. This could encourage recognition of sub-national or trans-national identities and interests in global politics.

On the Term “Nation-State”:

• First Use in Formal Discourse: To the best of my knowledge:
  • The term “nation-state” was used in a political context by William Allen White in The Nation in 1919. This is one of the earliest recorded instances where the term was explicitly used in formal political discourse.
  • However, posts on X suggest that the term might have been used in political discussions or writings in the 1890s or even as early as the 1870s, indicating that the concept was evolving before its formalization in political literature.

Given this, the term “nation-state” seems to have been formally articulated in the late 19th to early 20th century, with its usage becoming more defined and widespread in political science and diplomacy thereafter.

Your critique invites a reconsideration of how we conceptualize the relationship between nations and states, encouraging a framework where governance more transparently serves the cultural, social, and political diversity of its populace rather than assuming a monolithic identity or purpose.

The British are losing Britain. Not sure that Nigel Farage can do anything about it soon enough. It might be time, what with new eyes and a fresh start just ahead of us, to consider the potential long-term effects of either maintaining or closing American airfields in Britain. Also, it is time to re-evaluate Britain’s control of various strategic points and islands around the world. If Britain is no longer British, we might have to appreciate and change control over certain strategic pieces. We cannot leave to inertia, chance and vacuum all the remnants of empire past. There are places — I dunno — the Falklands, Diego Garcia, Gibraltar … etc., etc. that need new analysis in terms of American national strategy, especially if American national strategy is still tie to protection of global commons and open commerce. I think a starting hypothesis in all such analysis would be that we need a more powerful navy, and that we need Taiwan to be ally of the United States, wholly independent of Red China.

For those who are tired of the samo samo focus on Ukraine or maybe Israel, President Trump comes to your rescue talking about Panama and the little canal thing. He threatens to just take it back if they don’t shape up and quick. I’m 100% in favor of the threat and follow-through. I see it as a best use of military power, a natural and worthy expression of strategic might and as both practical and morally sound. Finally, Umph with a purpose. Go ahead, fight me on this.

It’s now 11 November and a long time since I’ve opined on the site.  My excuse is party that I’ve spent writing time on X and on Willy OAM. Also, the global geopolitical landscape and our internal domestic politics and culture war have been stumblingly elaborate.  I just haven’t felt knowledgeable enough, for instance, to say much about what is going on in Syria.  I did, however, find a site called Politics with Paint that helped a bit.  Try it out. Politics with Paint – YouTube

As for Ukraine, it befuddles to see a Frenchman go about trying to lead Europeans to greater military efforts in Ukraine.  It disconcerts and angers that another fifty billion dollars is about to be peed away in that direction. January 20 just can’t get here fast enough. To me, it’s obvious that the Ukrainian fighting force has been doing a remarkably well slowing down the Russian military. As a result, Ukraine is likely to exist as an independent country. The Ukrainian nation will likely have a place of their own. That said, it’s not going to be a European power and not going to have as much of a coal industry. I see no reason for it to be part of NATO.  In fact, NATO needs to be radically re-thought.

Which brings us to the question of Turkey. Let’s review the character, role and value of the Turkish government to American interests and security. And what is the relationship of that government to the security of Israel?

The United Staes needs to get stronger militarily, and fast. Naval power should be a priority.

Regarding our culture war, for now I’ll just refer you to a fellow named J.J. Sefton at Ace of Spades HQ. Great site and no paywall.  Ace of Spades HQ

From the American Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Campaigns and Operations we are given the following definitions of linear and nonlinear operations:

“In linear operations, each commander directs and sustains combat power toward enemy forces in concert with adjacent units. In linear operations, emphasis is on maintaining the position of friendly forces in relation to other friendly forces.

In nonlinear operations, forces orient on objectives without geographic reference to adjacent forces. Nonlinear operations typically focus on creating specific effects on multiple decisive points.”

Digging around, one can find a nub of nubs in Joint Logistics, Joint Publication 4-0. A lot revolves around the word feasibility.

“Feasibility. Feasibility is the criterion for assessing whether the assigned mission can be accomplished using available resources within the time contemplated. The point at which the CCDR or subordinate JFC judges that sufficient supplies, distribution capabilities, and LOC capacity exist to initiate operations at an acceptable level of risk is assessed as feasible.”

Unremarkable that a mission, an objective or an effort is not feasible if sufficient LOC do not exist — if the means to fight cannot be delivered. Remarkable that the most strategic-minded guy, the logistician, will deem a nonlinear operation not feasible if sufficient lines of supply cannot be established. That’s because there is no such thing as a nonlinear fight if the lines that matter to us are the lines of communication. Readers, the lines of communication are what matter.

That is not to say that the term nonlinear is totally senseless. JP-3 goes into it more than I suggested above. It just seems to boil down on most occasions to having to resupply by air or expect no resupply. Or it only means that no other commander is on the ground next to you. To me it would be a raid of some kind, and a small one at that. I don’t think the term nonlinear contributes as much as it detracts.

The end to the war in Ukraine will be negotiated. My bet is that neither ‘Ukraine’ nor ‘Zelensky’ will be valid descriptors of parties in that negotiation. ‘Ukraine’ will be the subject or object of any talks and “Zelensky’ an irrelevance. ‘NATO’ will have only marginal input. By the time Donald Trump’s term is inaugurated and his policies official, will the Russian Army have occupied all the way to the Dnieper below the city of Dnieper? Will the border in front of Kursk have been returned to where they were before the Ukrainian offensive? What will the map look like by then?

‘Negotiation’ will not properly describe how the war for Israel will end, though there will be a number of negotiations with neighborhood powers regarding their acceptance of it. The war for Israel will be ended by the Israeli Defense Forces, now with the full support of the United States. Hamas will be destroyed, the people of Gaza left to understand that neither Hamas nor some remnant or derivative will be allowed to represent them. Likewise, Hezbollah. The leadership of Lebanon as a country will change dramatically. The West Bank will become part of Israel. Am I wrong?

As for the Hegseth choice for Defense Sec, I’m thinking it’s brilliant. The Overton Window may be completely blown out and oh the hidden truths that might grow in the new light. What if someone began saying out loud that Southcom and Africom are neither effective nor necessary and that they could be all but zeroed out with no negative effect on the security of the country? Or even NATO. What if the rumor spread that NATO did nothing to deter the current war in Europe, but did a lot to provoke it? What if folk were reminded that NATO could easily have been closed out with a fine victory ceremony in the early 90s and should have been? What if Mr. Hegseth notices that the United Nations is a corrupt anti-democratic organization that has been dedicated to the destruction of Israel, and not to world peace? What if he notices that the European Union is an abusive concentration of power in underserving hands that has no concern or care for the security of the United States? What if instead of talking about Europeans paying the fare share of their defense, we start talking about the US paying no share of their defense? What if Mr. Hegseth is not part of the club in which these things are unspeakable?

OK, here is the Demarest suggestion for President Trump – what can be conceded and gained. What do you think is wrong with this?

The lower Dnieper be open and control shared;

Odessa be an open, tax-free port;

Ukraine to not have an air force or navy;

No demands for funding for the rebuilding of Ukraine be made against the US or Russia;

Russia retains ground already gained plus all of Donbass oblast;

Ukraine does not enter NATO;

Moldova does not enter NATO;

No American government personnel will participate in or guide upcoming Ukrainian elections, either directly or by way of NATO proxies;

If an insurgent war of some type emerges within Ukrainian territory, neither the United States government nor NATO country governments will participate or support any faction of it directly or indirectly;

Russia commits to return Israeli-Russian relations to the status quo ante, to cease arming Iran or aiding Iranian intelligence and to commit to helping Israel defeat Hamas and Hezbollah.

Well Halleluiah, whadayaknow! We are entering a new era. We are still going to suffer an awful internal fight, a civil war. The monster did not roll over and die, but we are in a way way better position for winning the thing now that the Dems have taken this drubbing. There is no doubt about Donald Trump having earned this victory. Everyone with eyes saw a man work as hard as a human could, uphill against every type of attack. The Democrats made some stupid mistakes, all perfectly in character, but they did not lose the election as much as Trump won it. So what now?  First thing is he is going to have to stay alive. We are going to have to keep him alive. Then comes the question of retribution. As all you highly intelligent fans of Winning Irregular War and On Multiform War are aware, the single most influential condition contributing to the commission of crimes is impunity, and the single most consequential condition enabling impunity is absence of a punitive pursuit. That is to say, the bad guys have to be made to pay for it. The people who have abused legal processes and who have abused government positions have to be punished. The deep state is the worst conduit and enabler of iniquities. President Trump and his people suffered their abuses personally. The purge they effect will be righteous and justified. The abusers know it. We need to keep the President alive. He helped America dodge a bullet.