From: Robert Comer 

>Your argument seems to hinge on the predicate of "nation".

Not really, it was a sidethread and that was "State" as in a
state level political entity.  Nation is more nebulous, especially when
talking about Native Americans, and I think the title "Nation"
was added much later...

>The Mexicans were & had been for a long while a nation (via the Spanish
>Empire & previously via the Aztecs etc).

State level structure goes back way before the Aztecs in Central America,
but a lot of that was south of Mexico. (Olmec's, Mayan's, plus some I can't
remember right now)  (I did mention this before as state level before...)

--
Bob Comer




On Tue, 29 May 2007 13:04:37 +0100, Ad
 wrote:

>Robert Comer wrote:
>>> The sioux nation? Reminds a little of the Eddie Izzard
argument wrt "do
>>> you have a flag....?"
>>
>> You I've heard nation, but it's not so much a political entity like
>> we're talking about.  "First nation" is what I hadn't heard.
>>
>
>e.g. in Africa:
>
>Were the Swazi a tribe & thus Swaziland is merely a tribal entity or a
>nation ergo Swaziland is a bona fide nation?
>
>>> Indeed. Mexico was a state / part of a state & yet....a
whole load of
>>> illegal immigrants followed by violent action by those illegals et voila
>>> the US South West.
>>
>> Not sure I get you point here...
>>
>
>Your argument seems to hinge on the predicate of "nation".
>
>Mexico was a nation e.g. it had a flag.
>
>The Mexicans were & had been for a long while a nation (via the Spanish
>Empire & previously via the Aztecs etc).
>
>Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5