Is the United States a nation?

Has the United States become a nation in the political science sense of the 
term, a group of people tied together by common religious, linguistic, 
cultural and ideological ties?

Or is it a conglomeration of distinct peoples sharing a common country but 
with deep differences?

Consider that the protestant WASP core of the United States may constitute an 
american nationality if you want to call it that, but this only makes up like 
50 percent of the country. Furthermore, the country is steadily de-Waspifying 
as Latinos and others make up more and more of the population. And while I 
have no evidence to back this up, I believe that telecommunications and cheap 
airline tickets will cause today's immigrants to remain more conected to 
their homelands and cause them to integrate much slower than those of the 
past.

the
an
like
de-Waspifying
cheap

People integrate into the society that surrounds them the best they can.
Integrating is actually a human need.  The fact that immigrants can remain
in touch with their folks in their old country, makes them less homesick,
but that's a good thing.  English will remain its language, and the western
ideals of its constitution will prevail.  There is no ideology, other than
respecting freedom, including the freedom to express your own ideology, our
government does not, and should not, cast ideologies on the people.  As far
as religion goes, people will remain free to worship the devil if they want
to, that's their call.  WASP, or no WASP, blues, or reds, the US is, and
will remain for ever, a group of free people tied together by a common
national identity, as set forth by its constitution, which is by far the
most remarkable political document ever drafted.

the
an
like
de-Waspifying
cheap

People integrate into the society that surrounds them the best they can.
Integrating is actually a human need.  The fact that immigrants can remain
in touch with their folks in their old country, makes them less homesick,
but that's a good thing.  English will remain its language, and the western
ideals of its constitution will prevail.  There is no ideology, other than
respecting freedom, including the freedom to express your own ideology, our
government does not, and should not, cast ideologies on the people.  As far
as religion goes, people will remain free to worship the devil if they want
to, that's their call.  WASP, or no WASP, blues, or reds, the US is, and
will remain for ever, a group of free people tied together by a common
national identity, as set forth by its constitution, which is by far the
most remarkable political document ever drafted.

> Has the United States become a nation in the political science sense of
the
an
like
de-Waspifying
cheap

The movie police academy was cool in the 80's. It was much like real
life. Bands in garages, people singing, joking all the time, and laughing.
Since then all the discos and lifestyle changed (for the worse). The
religious made many agendas and wiped out a great deal of social life
experiences as we knew it. Republicans in general. The US leads in
conservativizing the environment, but that is boring to death, and
makes many happy churchers. For example: In the past, you saw a
horse and you could jump on its back and ride. Now you go to a
horse club, and you need to sign contracts, provide health insurance,
like in the old russia where the city swimming pools only allowed
the greatest communist hypocrats. The US is hypocratic beyond
recognition. In other words sad, conservative, depressing, communist,
all those freaky things that makes everybody in the world negative
about Bush and the great police US.

Its a nation that sucks, humanly.

> > Has the United States become a nation in the political science sense of
but
constitute
I
the

P.S. I am mentally sick in an uptight society, where you cannot even
walk without a contract. that was my point. The US is sick, I stick to that
to infinity and beyond.

This question has been cross-posted to:
 
                alt.world
                rec.arts.sf.written
                soc.history.what-if
                soc.history
                comp.ai.philosophy
                alt.philosophy.objectivism
                alt.philosophy
           and  us.politics

Should anyone be thinking of answering this question, please check
headers and limit your response to newsgroups where the answer would be
appropriate.

<follow-ups set>

 - Syd

-- 
"[Disco] has a terrible reputation: when you say the word 'disco' people
think 'Bee Gees'.  But I view disco, at its serious best, as a dark,
grand Dionysian music with its roots in African earth-cult."
 - Camille Paglia

of the
linguistic,

No, the only thing that ever became a nation
on the Washington side of politics is the
US Constitution. Since it taken as given that the
Republican Party is too uneducated to even the
vaguest notion is, or is supposed to include.

And The Democratic Party is taken as too Marxist
to even know that there is not only life,
there is non-foreclosable electric life beyond
ideological, neo-cultural Soho slums.




country but
constitute an
up like
de-Waspifying
while I
and cheap
to
the 

of the
linguistic,
country but

A few years ago, I mentioned that the Museum of American Political
Life, at the University of Hartford, has a poster with the following
quotation:
"We are the Romans of the modern world--a great assimilating people."
Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1858

A subsequent reply stated: "Ah, your poster-maker is careless. That
line was in fact penned in 1857, the year when the Atlantic Monthly
magazine was founded. The elder Holmes was a regular contributor for
many years, and the first several issues included his regular column
'The Autocrat of the Breakfast Table.' The line you quote is from the
first issue. In 1858, several of the columns were serialized and
published as a book. Presumably this is where the inaccurate date was
drawn from. << We are the Romans of the modern world, - the great
assimilating people.>>"

DR

: > Has the United States become a nation in the political science
sense
: of the
: > term, a group of people tied together by common religious,
: linguistic,
: > cultural and ideological ties?
: >
: > Or is it a conglomeration of distinct peoples sharing a common
: country but
: > with deep differences?

I dunno where you got your definition of 'nation' from, but it's too
narrow.

OED:
    I. A people or group of peoples; a political state.

    1. a. A large aggregate of communities and individuals united by
factors such as common descent, language, culture, history, or
occupation of the same territory, so as to form a distinct people. Now
also: such a people forming a political state; a political state. (In
early use also in pl.: a country.)
  In early examples notions of race and common descent predominate. In
later use notions of territory, political unity, and independence are
more prominent, although some writers still make a pointed distinction
between nation and state. Cf. NATION-STATE n.
  The term is rarely used to refer to a state in its physical or
geographical aspect; but see quot. 1653.

True, some of the other definitions go your direction, but hell,
considering the question being asked, it's important to remember that
yes, the United States of America is a nation.   Period.


: A few years ago, I mentioned that the Museum of American Political
: Life, at the University of Hartford, has a poster with the following
: quotation:
: "We are the Romans of the modern world--a great assimilating
people."
: Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1858
:
: A subsequent reply stated: "Ah, your poster-maker is careless. That
: line was in fact penned in 1857, the year when the Atlantic Monthly
: magazine was founded. The elder Holmes was a regular contributor for
: many years, and the first several issues included his regular column
: 'The Autocrat of the Breakfast Table.' The line you quote is from
the
: first issue. In 1858, several of the columns were serialized and
: published as a book. Presumably this is where the inaccurate date
was
: drawn from. << We are the Romans of the modern world, - the great
: assimilating people.>>"

Seems kinda silly to worry about a date being off by only a
year....since it makes no difference to anything.

Re: Your Theory of Assimilation

I do not agree about the fact that today's immigrants do not assimilate
as fast as those of the past. Rather, I think that there is
polarization occuring in immigrantion. On one hand, there are a number
of immigrants who enter the US as already affluent individuals, while
on the other hand, there are, similar to the immigrants of circa 1900,
individuals that enter the US searching to make decent life (e.g.
refugees).

Some factors to consider:
1. As you have mentioned, in the past 50 or so years, origin of
immigration has steadily shifted from the Europe to Latin America,
Asia, and Africa. These people have more marked contrasts with the WASP
core than European immigrants, especially in language (often not
Germanic- or Latin-based, e.g. Chinese Mandarin) and race (which,
contrary to the ideals of the US, is in fact a social factor). This is
not a racist.statement; rather, it is a pragmatic assessment of the
state of the US. These marked contrasts force the aforementioned
"refugee" class of immigrants to stay in their own homogenous social
groups, slowing their assimilation. These peoples are similar to the
immigrants from the "mass immigrations" of the early 20th century.

2. However, there is also the aforementioned growing class of affluent
immigrants that enter the US. These individuals already are
"globalized": they already are educated in the English language (the
lingua franca of the business and scholarly worlds) and are part of a
culture stronly influenced by the global mass media. This mass media
includes American movies, American books, American TV, American fast
food, and American clothing. Furthermore, these people already have at
least a basic understanding of the American form of government. This
polarizing phenomenon of globalization is precipitated by the advent of
modern communications, spearheaded by the Internet. These people will
likely be assimilated much more rapidly into what remains of the
American "mainstream."