|
|
Post by Enríc Válbuerg on Sept 18, 2007 0:32:52 GMT -6
The only difference between the two I've ever heard is that "nation" has generally good connotations (eg. "Fight for the Nation", "For the Defence of the Nation") while state has a subtly negative connotation from its use in the Soviet Unon (state-owned farms, statism, "big state" politics).
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Sept 18, 2007 11:43:42 GMT -6
The only difference between the two I've ever heard is that "nation" has generally good connotations (eg. "Fight for the Nation", "For the Defence of the Nation") while state has a subtly negative connotation from its use in the Soviet Unon (state-owned farms, statism, "big state" politics). Like Tony said, no two words ever mean exactly the same thing. There are always different connotations, different shades of meaning. The words "state," "nation," and "country" are all used more-or-less interchangeably by many (probably most) English speakers. There is a lot of overlap in their meanings. The difference, for me, is primarily one of emphasis. "State" focuses on a political entity. "Nation" focuses on people. And "country" focuses on physical territory. Calling Talossa a "nation" may create some degree of ambiguity. But for me, it focuses on our common identity as a people. And ambiguity isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes good diplomacy requires a certain degree of ambiguity. Taiwan, for example, must be very carefully ambiguous in certain areas with respect to the People's Republic of China. And the United States has used ambiguity (regarding Taiwan) to great advantage in its own relations with the People's Republic of China. Talossa's situation is not so different. |
|
