Even worse for me, I'm an internationalist and I felt very proud to be part of the EU for many of the same reasons I felt proud to be part of the UK: civic nationalism. The UK was the worlds most successful civic nation built on mutualism between a number of ethnic countries. To break up on ethnic borders and return to tribalism is heartbreaking.

Was it?

I mean, that's how it's taught in schools, but how well does that reflect the actual history? Certainly it doesn't represent the UK's history with Ireland, which really isn't taught in schools. That's how people like Melanie "wrong about everything all of the time" Phillips can write national newspaper articles in which Ireland has a "tenuous claim to nationhood".

This is kind of the problem, we have all this national mythos that runs up to about 1966 and then stops. And it doesn't bear scrutiny in the modern age. The last attempt at building a national narrative that worked for everyone was the Blair era "cool Britannia", and half a million dead Iraqis took the shine off that a bit.

Not to mention the inward focus of Unionism. Everyone looks towards London, but London doesn't look outwards. Occasionally it dispatches a foreign correspondent to Manchester to report on conditions. The average English person thinks of Scotland little and NI not at all.

How it's taught in schools in UK/England perhaps. In Ireland the history class is all about how England is a horrible oppressor of Ireland. ;)

"Ethnic countries" - if the states primarily contains one nation of people - ethnically (ie mainly culturally), is commonly referred to as a national state.

National states became a popular concept in the 19th century, possibly because the kings, emperors and other rulers were starting to loose power and had to build their states around some concept. Before that, the kings and the rulers did not give the nationality of their subjects much of a thought I suppose.

Some (many?) Americans would describe themselves as hailing from a specific state or city, not the nation.

Personally, when traveling abroad, if asked where I'm from, I generally say "Washington DC", not "the US".

Yeah, I've met people like you. The problem is, this asks from your interlocutor of awareness for internal USA geography knowledge. On the other hand, many of those "from San Francisco" or from somewhere alike expect you to be just "from Europe" instead of "Germany" (or any other national state with its own cultural identity and external policy, for that matter).

P.S.: Try "Franconia" or "Thuringia" instead of "Germany" and see how many bells that rings! Mind you, these are broad regions, not merely cities.

I often say "London". I don't like saying "England", I consider the whole UK to by my country, but "United Kingdom" or even "Britain" are often not understood, and in any case, "which city?" is almost always the next question.

There are exceptions. If I'm introducing myself to someone with very limited English, like a young child in a developing country, I'll say England.

I wouldn't have the same expectation of somebody from Asia. Not only is language a possible problem, but there are a TON of large cities in China (and other parts of Asia) I know nothing about.

That city has been part of the American "brand" for decades; from hippies, free love, Vietnam protesters and gay rights, to the dot-com boom and more recent startups. Add some destructive earthquakes, plenty of American films and music, and the international press whenever a startup does something bad.