[Hengest]

If you look in the OED Gazelle, it defines "nation" as: "a large body of people united by a common descent, culture or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory". I think this makes more sense. The wiki definition would make it difficult to argue that the US, Canada, Australia, Brazil, etc, were nations, which is, of course, ridiculous.

That aside, I think the wiki definition would still allow the British to be a nation (despite my personal views on the subject). Recent studies on the UK's population are showing that, genetically at least, we are nowhere near as diverse as we thought. The overwhelming majority of British citizens are descended from only two mass migrations, both quite soon after the last Ice Age. The southern English, Welsh, Cornish, Irish and a large section of the Scots moved in from the south, most probably from Iberia, while the north English and the rest of the Scots came across from the north, almost certainly from Scandinavia. The impact from more recent migrations (Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Huguenots, etc) has been tiny, only registering at all in East Anglia (probably a Saxon/Danish mix), Yorkshire (possibly Saxon, more probably Norse) and Orkney and Shetland (most definitely Norse).

[Gazelle]

Originally Posted by Hengest

If you look in the OED Gazelle, it defines "nation" as: "a large body of people united by a common descent, culture or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory". I think this makes more sense. The wiki definition would make it difficult to argue that the US, Canada, Australia, Brazil, etc, were nations, which is, of course, ridiculous.

That aside, I think the wiki definition would still allow the British to be a nation (despite my personal views on the subject). Recent studies on the UK's population are showing that, genetically at least, we are nowhere near as diverse as we thought. The overwhelming majority of British citizens are descended from only two mass migrations, both quite soon after the last Ice Age. The southern English, Welsh, Cornish, Irish and a large section of the Scots moved in from the south, most probably from Iberia, while the north English and the rest of the Scots came across from the north, almost certainly from Scandinavia. The impact from more recent migrations (Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Huguenots, etc) has been tiny, only registering at all in East Anglia (probably a Saxon/Danish mix), Yorkshire (possibly Saxon, more probably Norse) and Orkney and Shetland (most definitely Norse).

Hmmm...very interesting.

[Triple T]

I think it's funny that you two are contemplating the definition of nation when the definition of empire would be more revealing to the previous point made in this thread: that the British have possessed a vast amount of land across the globe.

And even if you want to write that off as history and not relevant to the now, feel free to look up the definition of neo-colonialism or investigate the disparities within the flow of resources in globalized economics. The Korean runt above still made a valid point that the British can get away with advancing myths as truths because they have been and continue to be dominant over others who may disagree.

[Hengest]

I think it's funny that you think Britain still has any power in this world.

[Gazelle]

If we have a respectable prime minister, i think we definately have influence, but otherwise, i think, with Tony Blair and Bush, is was more like Bush had the power, and Tony Blair would for the most part go along with him partly because of it. But, i know nothing of politics.

But, yes, i'm more with Hengest, anyone can put their army anywhere, any top government officials can be present at meetings and talk, but, doesn't mean they have any power. But, i'm completely unqualified to comment, in reality on any power UK may or may not have.

[Gazelle]

What i mean to say is, people so what they want when it suits them. If someone has power it just means they have it in their grasp to make things suit people more or less in different situations according to how it suits them.

I suppose diplomatically UK has some standing, and then, i think UK leans on US a bit on the more shall we say 'upfront' things i.e. weapons and such, but, this is based on too fewer observations to be reliable...

To what extent to different places have this ability? Well, with all this nucleur weapons malarchy, i suppose it's likely to be that some are more weary than usual about stepping on other peoples toes, depending on how much they have and how volatile they are...

The most power one can have is wit combined with influence, i believe, at least at this moment.

[bamboo]

The Brits and 'mericans may move thier armies around and attend meetings or they may choose to be absent, but thier economic power is felt everywhere.

The world is conquered through $$$, not might.

-bamboo

[zefff]

LMAO @ Tony Blair and regular British citizens considered as 'we'. There is no 'we'! He is up there and you are down there - thats all there is to it. You could be British or not, he would not give a rart either way about a plebe!

[Gazelle]

Yes, well, i guess i thought i'd be diplomatic Besides, it is easier...and, though this may come as a shock, he is still human!

[Triple T]

Originally Posted by Hengest

I think it's funny that you think Britain still has any power in this world.

I think it's funny you don't. See Bamboo's post and then reread mine.