[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: national v nationalist

I cited the US Government:

> > The
> > CIA Factbook lists Puerto Rico as a country, and speaks of the
> > nationality "Puerto Rican":
> > 
> > http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rq.html
> > 
> > I'm starting to think that it is correct to refer to a "Puerto Rican
> > national" in the news, although such nationals are US citizens.
> > 

and Dave F. countered:
> Using that line of thinking then I would be a "Massachusetts National", 
> and you can add Virginia and perhaps Nevada? to that list since those
> states are actually "Commonwealths" and not States as in "The State of
> New Hampshire".  I'm not going to criticize the CIA at this point,
> however it would be nice to think that they know the difference between a
> sovereign nation and a Commonwealth of the United States wouldn't you
> agree?

Perhaps we should back up a bit, Dave: the "line of thinking" you
suggest is not mine.   I wasn't proposing any argument based on Puerto
Rico's "commonwealth" status, and didn't introduce that word into the

Even if I had been thinking along such a line, the counter-argument
you've proposed involving the Commonwealths of Massachusetts, Virginia,
etc., was not sound, as it was based on (in philosophical jargon) an
"equivocation": a logic error related to a word with two meanings.

The word "nation" has an ambiguity: it can refer to an ethnic/cultural
identity (a nationality), or to a sovereign political community.  Given
that ambiguity, I figure we shouldn't rule out the term "Puerto Rican
national" as incorrect.

I'll leave the last word on this to you, Dave, if you want to go any
further with it.