Culture or nation - which is more important?

Naturally one tends to believe that a nation essentially means a distinct culture but there evidently exist nations that have no culture (*cough* america *cough*). Considering the recent immigration crisis which Europe deems a threat to its culture, an important point to note here is that whereas culture is often mentioned, no mention is made of 'national identity'. So it can be concluded that the idea of 'nation' is abstract and there's only a boundary surrounding it which determines who is a part of the nation. But, if I move to France, I'll be treated as a foreigner; so even this conclusion is false. The idea of a 'nation' is then surely not abstract but not concrete either.

Culture, on the other hand, is undoubtedly concrete. A culture has some certain traditions (which can be regarded as 'rules' here for a certain behavior to qualify as culture) which are subject to change only through time or foreign invasion. A certain dress code, a cuisine, history etc - culture is diverse; anything peculiar about a certain nation can be thrown into the sack titled 'culture'.

But wars have been waged for nations, for national identity. There are very few (if any - not in my knowledge whatsoever) wars that were waged for the preservation of culture. Another interesting thing to observe is how much nation gets in the way of culture, e.g you cannot start a scuffle with your local foreigners because they're contaminating your culture as the first question you'll have to dodge will be, 'Aren't they [your country's name] first?'.

Nation can be thought of as a template with rectangular (any shaped, actually) markings on it which are very clear in the middle but become blurry around the edges. That clearer parts are drawn there by 'culture' is without doubt. The strength of a nation lies in its integrity and unity and both those can come about from only one thing which the nationals share in common : "Culture''. Religion can be up there too but religious states too have sort of adopted their religion as 'culture'.

So, what exactly is a Nation?

How much role does Culture play in defining Nation?

What makes Nation stronger than Culture as a reason to fight for?

Is national threat the same as cultural threat or not?

(I'm actually copying this thread I created on another forum - cuz why not?)

More or less...this due has it right. If you are worried about a threat to your culture, you are discriminating. If citizens aren't violating your civil liberties but are still changing the way of life for a society or nation, that is just the order of things.

a nation is a political construct encompassing people ( usually ) of a similar culture. culture imo is the stronger bond. just look a places like the middle east or africa where artificial political borders were imposed upon people of differing cultures to see how well that works.

also "nations that have no culture (*cough* america *cough*)."

where are you getting that from??

The USA has a culture. In fact, like many countries, it has a number of cultures.

Culure!

Asking this question is like asking what's more important; a box, or what's inside? You see the box, but it's just a container. What is inside is far more important.

And in the US, as other/s have said, we have many cultures. I love it, and I embrace it much more than the patriotism/nationalism that "'muricans" portray.

A nation is substantiated by its laws and statutes. It certainly can be "concrete." A culture can be substantiated by morals which can be objective facts with subjective interpretation and data-driven applications.

Neither. The free thinking individual is by far more important than either nation or culture. Nations lead to nationalism, which is a mob like way of thinking. Culture is like spray paint on the mirror you are trying to see yourself in.

its like being jewish ... u are born with this 'believe' and cant do anything about it .... yeah right ... sweet illusive concepts ... you know how many ´jewish women comit suicide after they become 30 ? ... its not different from Islam except ... they dont do bomb runs ... oh wait

I don't hold either in high regard but between the two I'd say culture. It's good to maintain certain traditions. Keeps things diverse and interesting.

@hillelslovak: There is such a thing as a culture of one.

I find a Nation of way more importance. Culture can hold your people back. Not to say culture is bad, just that a balance is more important, and a Nation usually has a balance of culture so that they dont go crazy. Like some people in Florida whos culture is to kill chickens in the front yard for sacrifice. Cool culture bro, but...its kinda mean, not in my Nation!

@iandizion713: "Like some people in Florida whos culture is to kill chickens in the front yard for sacrifice. Cool culture bro, but...its kinda mean, not in my Nation!"

There's a story here I really want to read

@byof_america: Santeria!

I've always seen culture as a salad bar. When people put up defined walls between cultures then you're not progressing anything. Keep in mind, the richest places on Earth have historically been the crossroads of multiple cultures.

SJW may call it 'appropriation', I just call it not having a stick up my ass.

A nation is something different entirely. You can't select this law from one country, this one from another and so on. The purpose of a nation is to create stability, the purpose of culture is to fill that stability with purpose.

The purpose of a nation is to create stability, the purpose of culture is to fill that stability with purpose.

okay, goebbels

Perhaps that multitude of cultures amount to no culture. But yeah, still culture nonetheless.

Quote worthy statement, the last one.

So, the seeming threat that poses Europe from immigration is no threat at all, from a cultural point of view, for you?

Well just look at America, a country with no culture

@br0kenrabbit: the richest countries on earth have generally not been crossroads of multiple cultures, comparatively speaking.

Everything from ancient Alexandria to modern New York were/are major centers of cultural exchange.

I'm not following you. Culture itself doesn't present an issue. Politics maybe, but not culture.

I've heard many Europeans complain about Cultural dilation. That immigrants are a danger to their 'culture'; they bring with them that savagery (well, of course) and close-mindedness which now permeates EU's polity at large - you know, the undue favor of immigrants and stuff.

Swedish people especially are the most against immigration and their reasons are always on the lines of; "They threaten our culture'' or ''they spread crime''.

That sounds like some KKK shit right there. Same mindset.

Well in our case (Scotland), you've probably seen Braveheart. This movie is romanticized fantasy - only two aspects of it real:

After the battle of Stirling William Wallace became a national figure and Guardian Of Scotland. This put him on a exceedingly high pedestal. His humiliating death designed to set an example had the opposite effect - it would have been something like Obama getting beheading by ISIS.

The response in those times would have been less nationalism as we would understand it and more outright anglophobia - which unfortantly still exists partly because of the movie.

Robert The Bruce did work on Edward I side and helped hunt Wallace - although jumped sides and eventually made Scotland "a country" his reasons while affected by Wallace - which would have enraged the nobility, were less altruistic. For years he had been pining to be King and the leaders of Scotland was a rival clan named the Cornyns.

Prior to this Edward I had lordship over the lands - it was a puppet country with a puppet king, John Balliol who was affiliated with the Cornyns. Each king would swear an oath of fealty subjugating it to more of a *county" - an extension.

While not a "real" country, and a small sparsely populated land it had culture made up of Gaelics, Anglo-Saxons, Gallovidian and Flemish e.t.c. made up of different languages.

--------------

To cut it down, aside from Wallace, Bannockburn - the first real victory in centuries would have contributed to sense of indenity. This is evident by the fact the English mistook peasants swarming in from the countryside in to help as real enforcements - scattering.

The final word came from Pope XXII who would officially declare it a country it's own sovereign and Robert right as king - overwriting Edward II's refusal to acknowledge it and ending war for the time being.

Still, the concept of a country was not tangible and more a land, cut up and owned by lords that could retract and extend it as they see fit. The thinking wasn't about the little people but the people in charge and they resources acquired.

On a larger picture (hundreds of years ahead) the fragmented nature of a Clan system with parochial thinking was detrimental both as a culture and a country. By this time much more united countries like France and England were well ahead.

Joining with England, with the Union Of The Crowns and the Act Of Union has been beneficial in the long run - mixing cultures on a grand scale.

Culture, when used for war or politics, is just a nicer way of wrongful discrimination. it's the key that fits the bigotry lock when racism clumsy, considering that culture is almost always tied to race.

when people talk about "losing their culture", they are essentially claiming their culture is superior, implicitly implying that they are superior.

of the two, i'd have to pick Nation. Culture is too abstract, it's basically making up rules as you go along based on nothing other than whims of the moment.

I was thinking the exact same thing. That is the KKK mindset. Different people with different customs come along and the majority thing "there goes the neighborhood." The scary thing might be what the Swedish people do about their POV. History has shown what the KKK did.

I am proud to say that I am an American and we have a rich culture if that were not the case why do so many people want to live here. Our history has to be taught correctly and quit attacking it all the time or only telling half truths. One thing I can say a lot of people in the United States have lost a;ll common sense.

A multitude of cultures amounts to a pluricultural country, not a cultureless country. There's absolutely nothing wrong with pluriculturalism, and just because you may not agree with many aspects of a culture (in the case of the USA, there's so many things I disagree with I wouldn't know where to begin) doesn't mean you can dismiss it. Great Britain or Spain have different nationalities within them and, going even deeper, diverse traditions and cultural aspects present only in specific regions. This doesn't mean that there isn't a distinct British or Spanish culture. The same can be said about the USA.

As for immigration into Europe, I'll take the liberty of also giving my thoughts. No, it isn't a threat from a cultural point of view; just because a diverse array of cultures mingle in one place doesn't mean there's any danger for any of them. They may evolve, but that's what culture does, it evolves. The only threat to a culture would likely come from purposeful suppression, which isn't going to happen to Europe.

Culture

Both are important and at the same time they're not. It depends on what you expect from your culture or your country. How you define your culture or country. What is your culture or country about? Sometimes if not always when you are fighting for a right cause even the lines of culture/country get blurred out and your country may influence another country. For instance, if you are fighting for your country's independence from say a colonialist power, you are essentially fighting for nationalism and for your own country but in doing so you have defined your country as "an independent state" and that's what has rallied people behind you. So I think it depends on our expectations and also our motives.

Country/culture is best viewed as a tool. It's up to you to use it for the right cause. But just like any tool, there may be serious flaws with it and one shouldn't deny it. One should either try to fix it or if it would seem completely impossible, outright reject it and create his/her own country/culture if he/she can. If he/she can't, then he/she should immigrate to a place with more or less the same values as him/her.

Nation

America is losing it's way and letting itself get bullied when it comes to making other assimilate to it's ways.

Culture

Since it's the particular thing which gives a Nation its identity. I see Nation as a body of a spirit (Culture). A Nation is nothing without Culture. While Culture can stand alone without Nation.

That's a nice simile. A culture doesn't need an embodiment, while a nation is just a shell without its culture.

It's a weird question. You can't really have one without the other, so what's more important is a bit irrelevant. I understand why some people are afraid of the idea of their culture dissipating. Some cultures have very different values. If you have one culture with strong moral values, and it gets submerged into a much larger culture with less moral values, we know from history that the smaller culture will eventually assimilate into the larger culture and the values will mostly disappear.

Let's say you have nation with a dominant culture of people who mostly think it's not a big deal to blow up other people in the name of religion. Now let's say they reside next to another nation, a smaller one, with a weaker culture of people who don't think it's okay to blow up other people in the name of religion. Suppose all of these people who think it's not a big deal to blow up people in the name of religion immigrate en mass to the other nation and out-number and eventually assimilate the other culture. What's left? Two nations that are cool with blowing up other people in the name of religion.

In this scenario, the concept of a nation doesn't really mean much when the values that originally brought that nation to be aren't upheld anymore. For these reasons, I don't see why it's intrinsically racist to worry about culture. You have to respect the fact that different cultures do things different ways. And if you respect that fact, it's pretty difficult to ignore the fact that some cultures are completely cool with things that other cultures aren't cool with.

Depending where you live, it might be a cool thing to kidnap a woman and make them your wife. But to say "I don't want that happening where I live", automatically means you're a Nazi in this day and age. So I guess depending how you look at it, everyone's aspiring to be a Nazi. Either you want to protect your culture, thus your a Nazi. Or you don't value cultural differences (all cultures are the same and equal), and you follow a fascist movement of stigmatizing people who care about it, thus you're a Nazi. If Hitler truly wanted "crush the jews" in the day and age, all he'd have to do is just start massively immigrating people towards Jerusalem, change its name, and start labeling all the upset Jewish people who live there as racists. Over time the culture would diminish and people would forget what Judaism is. And then they'd be probably be remembered as a bunch racist Middle Eastern bullies who were extremely unwilling to share with other cultures.

Then why do they encourage immigration so much?

they want of course immigrants that are already educated and come to work in high profile jobs to generate taxes ... not the ones from the 3rd world

they suffer from brain drain

because their population growth rate is insufficient to replace the workforce. which begs the question, why can't a culture that doesn't want to have kids still want their culture to exist when they themselves nor their children will?

imposing your culture on people separated by distance is as bad as imposing your culture on people separated by time. people change, culture changes, nations change. the alternative for countries like sweden is to die out n the next 200 years or so and have a country with no population.

They need to understand they have no right to impose their culture on Swedes 10 years from now, just as Swedes 10 years ago had no right to impose their culture on today's Swedes.

Culture is much more important.

Look at all the different cultures in the USA alone. There is a reason it is called a "Melting Pot"

Canada and USA are different nations, but would a Canadien or American be in "Culture Shock" if they switched places?

There are differences, but the cultures are basically the same.

With a measly population of nine million, probably less than that, lol. Plus it could still have population, just little to no ethnic Swedes.

for some reason this video is current american culture in a nutshell ... thought I just put it here and for some reason I cant post it directly so ... link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP-lITsklBU