Group politico-territorial identities are potent realities in our fragile world, yet geographers have all but ignored them. Elements and processes involved in recognizing such territorially bound identities are discussed, with a stress on questions of scale and perception. The “legitimacy” of a group politico-territorial identity depends upon the scale of abstraction and upon the definer's perspective. The main problem lies in defining nation. At one level of abstraction, a nation is only a regionalism, yet many groups accept the concept of nation as fact. To appreciate the interplay between these points, several related concepts are also discussed. Some problems connected with group allegiances and orientations are identified. The paper concludes by briefly identifying different responses to the question of whether groups with distinct territorially based identities should have the right to separate territorial and political independence and by challenging geographers to become aware of such identities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David B. Knight (1982) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: