I think you right. You answer all the questions I have when trying to answer it.

In regards to

There is the theory that peoples inhabiting similar climates have suffered similar hardships and problems and thus have simile cultural traditions.

I think there is some value to this idea and I imagine that peoples who’ve grown up in artic conditions would share some traditions due to the effects of the environments their cultures have frown from. — I like sushi

I'm asking you to elaborate

In my opinion, language does not necessarily conform to being part of a country. Not speaking the language, does not affect a person's compliance to being a person of that country - as long as the cultural traditions, interests, and preferences etc are met.

One can be considered Spanish, if by heart the person believes they are Spanish. However, it doesn't change the essential fact that they are not Hispanic.

A nation with its own government occupying a specific territory containing districts, settlements and towns. — Anaxagoras

culture is what develops from that — Anaxagoras

This feels a bit circular to me. The changing aspects of culture or the introduction of other cultures through immigration, is unlikely to reach a point where a country can be defined as a country, or a nation as you define it, by those cultures. All that could be said was that it was a multicultural country, but that doesn’t define what a country is. That feels too amorphous to me. The collective cultures are more likely to operate within some other agreed upon idea of country.
An interesting question for me is if these people existed geographically as a central mass population would they still feel the need for a border?

I cannot remember the name of the theory.

Basically the idea is that cultures blend throughout history where the climate is similar. The hardships of winter in some regions is a stark contrast to tropical regions. Water management in dry areas means that water becomes important to that culture. Then there is the flora and fauna and the ease with which communities can transition from one area to another.

In modern terms this is not as apparent but was certainly a factor in the development of early cultures. Needless to say certain societal traditions have expressed themselves right through to today.

I don’t see it as a stand allne theory by any means. It is certainly worth considering though in regards to how cultures and civilizations deveoped and prospered where others didn’t. Large regions with similar climates allowed the movement of the people loving there more readily, and thus trade routes were more easily established and ideas exchanged.

LOL okay if you don't get it you don't get it but I explained it clear. You're thinking too much into something so simple.

As usual what you mean is I don’t go along with your thinking. Why shut down the conversation? If everything is so cut and dry then why bother taking part in a discussion?

What don’t I get?

As usual what you mean is I don’t go along with your thinking. Why shut down the conversation? If everything is so cut and dry then why bother taking part in a discussion?

What don’t I get? — Brett

I gave you my explanation which was quite clear, to which you claimed that it wasn't, and that it sounded circular, well, I disagree. Considering that the idea of circular in my mind seems confusing and non-distinct, I had to re-read previous posts of mine to come to the conclusion that the explanation was quite clear. So it would appear that the confusion is merely left for you to clear up. I clearly made the distinction between country and culture and have defined both. The author of the OP got it, why didn't you?

What I meant by circular, (and I wasn’t meaning just your posts, it was mine as well, and it wasn’t accusing you of being confusing), was that if we use culture to define country then eventually we reach a point where it comes back to geography.

Thinking about the way the idea of ‘Country’ is developing it seems very problematical to define it by culture. So I was thinking if countries become more multicultural, multicultural itself isn’t an identifiable culture, it’s too amorphous for people to identify with, and so in a circular way we come back to my beginning which was the idea of borders.

I don’t mind someone disagreeing with me, but I can’t see any disadvantage to looking outside the box at subjects and following a trail, even if it turns out to go nowhere.

Thinking about the way the idea of ‘Country’ is developing it seems very problematical to define it by culture. So I was thinking if countries become more multicultural, multicultural itself isn’t an identifiable culture, it’s too amorphous for people to identify with, and so in a circular way we come back to my beginning which was the idea of borders. — Brett

Which is why I said the concept of culture when looking at the United States for example, is complex because culture is not static, rather it can become fluid. Going back to my earlier:

I am African-American.

My ancestry is of African origin yet my national origin of existence is America.

Although nationally and culturally I am American by the macro-level understanding, I also identify with African culture as it relates to African descendants in America.

One may ask what does that mean?

Well it means that I have a relationship with others of my demographic who look like me and engage in the same collective customs as I do that relates to those of my demographic. I carry on a social as well as historical relationship not just by me existing as an African-American, but to experience it. then one may further ask "how do you identify with American culture?

To make the distinction one must understand there is a cultural difference between United States American, and Canadian American, as well as members of the Latin Central and South Americas. Although by reason of linguistic technicality, we are all Americans I do not identify with Canadians and Central and South Americans only except by borderlines. With that being said it does go back to geography as you put it. But culture as how I identify myself does not stop at my demographic and nationality. I also share in the culture of being a student, a healthcare worker, a medical professional, a gamer, an online forum chat member. All of these things which many people of different ethnic and national origins partake in (which is the beauty of humanity!).

Then going further one may ask "what is it to be an American?"

I would gladly point out that by being a United States citizen and to partake in that culture is simply defined by the conglomerate cultures that exist in the United States who share a common language, goal, and principles. Although ethnically we have our distinct ethnic as well as religious/non-religious traditions we are still unified under the common cultural belief in the U.S. mantra of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Breaking that down further our cultures become distinct based on our geographical location within the U.S. A New Yorker has a different culture and mannerism than someone from Idaho, and the same can be said of someone from California versus someone from Florida.

I would gladly point out that by being a United States citizen and to partake in that culture is simply defined by the conglomerate cultures that exist in the United States who share a common language, goal, and principles. — Anaxagoras

I’m not sure that the commonality you mean really exists as it once did, in any country, even the US. So I have doubts about the idea of culture defining a country. I’m not sure what it is and what it will be in the future. That’s why I think of ‘country’ as, ultimately anyway, being defined by borders. The idea of culture will be too uncertain to relate to. And yet borders are arbitrary, as is, possibly, saying you are part of a country. If you crossed the border from Columbia to Venuezeula would you notice any difference in culture?

The idea of “nation” is a relatively new one. If you go back to the Napoleonic era (not that long ago) the main distinctions between people was “language borders”.

When resources, of any kind, are contended over then the issue of “land” comes into play - today with global communications and intellectual distribution, information mining and other such things, the whole political landscape has shifted and societies are adjusting. The most widely exported “culture” is US culture. The term “multiculturalism” is being met by the counter “cultural appropriation” and/or “nationalism”.

Over human history the movement and communications of peoples has been massively limited compared to today.

If you crossed the border from Columbia to Venuezeula would you notice any difference in culture? — Brett

When I mention borders I was merely talking about the separation of countries ergo the border of Southern California is Mexico which is a different country with a different culture. I was just merely saying that although technically Canada, Mexico, U.S., Central America are all defined as North Americans separated by borders, culturally we are different.

For example, would someone in Belize know what it's like to eat a deep dish pizza in Chicago even though they've never been there? No.

Would someone from Brazil know what its like to eat a "Dodger Dog?" Nope.

Yes we're all American but Dodger Dogs and Deep Dish pizzas are a part of a culture in the United States.

I’m not sure that the commonality you mean really exists as it once did, in any country, even the US. — Brett

Sure it does. I see it in those who serve the military as well as people who are citizens. You don't have to consciously have this mindset that everyone must be conscious of being of the same culture it is a subconscious mental state. Like, if I travel to New York, people in let's say Brooklyn, know that I don't belong there (in the sense that I wasn't born there). From my "Californian accent" to the style of dress, and the way I word things. Sure they can understand me cause I speak English but the culture of New Yorkers is different than the culture of Californians.

I think the idea of a unified culture happens when someone from the outside perhaps is either threatening our way of life, or we engage in someone of a different country who is not accustomed to being North American. But the idea that people of a given country must consciously think of being unified is a misnomer. For U.S. citizens I don't think nobody goes around thinking about national unity on a day to day basis unless fear mongering happens where someone believes their way of life is threatened.

If you crossed the border from Columbia to Venezuelan would you notice any difference in culture? — Brett

Since I'm neither Colombian (I think you meant to spell it like this) nor Venezuelan, I wouldn't be able to tell, but since I know dialects exist I think the only difference I could possible tell between the two Latin American countries are perhaps the dialect of words they use maybe? Other than that I wouldn't know.

Then I guess what I’m trying to get at is that the idea of ‘Country’ is arbitrary. Sushi talks about ‘language borders’. You talk about culture. Sushi says the idea of ‘Nation’ is relatively new. I understand your points about culture, how people define themselves through a shared culture. They didn’t regard themselves as a ‘country’. That came after when border were applied.

Then I guess what I’m trying to get at is that the idea of ‘Country’ is arbitrary. — Brett

Elaborate, how?

A ‘country’ is defined by its borders. A group of people define themselves along cultural grounds, not by arbitrary borders. In the Middle East after WWI the colonials drew up arbitrary borders delineating countries according to their interests. Many of these borders cut right though the middle of cultural groups, or locked in conflicting cultural groups. The distinction between cultural groups was what set them apart. There may have been ideas about the outer edges of territory, but there was no sense of a ‘country’ that you were defined by.

If borders are arbitrary, then so are countries. And, in fact, isn’t one of the big debates these days over issues of borders.

Belonging to a State means you need to accept its (not necessarily very sensible) laws and institutions and not rock the boat too evidently or the bully-boys will get you. Belonging to a national group means shared historical language, history and - with luck - aspirations. They are very different, and have a lot to do with size. A country like mine, Cymru/'Wales' is far more complex than many with more powerful institutions because it has spent history being divided up by attacking groups and has currently a population of which a third were born elsewhere and of which less than a third speak the historical language. It is still far more fun to live in, because we feel more equal and share much experience than do the populations of larger countries. We have a choice of two identities at all times too. It gives you to wonder what possible sense citizenship of much larger countries really has.