Are you referring to genetic heritability? If so, you might not be aware that the common ancestors of all modern humans left the African subcontinent only 10s of thousands of years ago? [1] Or perhaps you weren't aware of pedigree collapse [2], which proves that nearly all people share ancestry in the more recent past? Or are you arguing that nations as we define them today are either genetically unique, or you have picked an arbitrary point in the time where you declare it as such (which would be ... made up)?

Perhaps instead you meant cultural heritability, like language, foods, etc? The problem is that culture isn't carried in the genes, and disperses quite freely across the world, from ancient to modern times, and cultures actively spread and market their traits over geographic and even linguistic boundaries, so culture is not a very good feature to use to define a nation via heritability.

Human identity has been complex and probably confusing since the first time identity was contemplated, so we invented models like "nation" to serve our political ends (usually to mobilize members of one "nation" against other "nations").

[1] https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/human-journey/

[2] https://curiosity.com/topics/everyone-on-earth-is-related-cu...

I'm referring to all forms of heritability.

Also, the Out of Africa conjecture Is Made Up: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-out-of-afr...

You should read your sources more carefully:

> the first occurring about two million to 1.5 million years ago during the late Pliocene and early Pleistocene epochs; a second during the mid Pleistocene, roughly one million to 500,000 years ago; and ending with the spread of modern humans, 50,000 to 30,000 years in the past.

> The new findings, published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, casts doubt on the second migration out of Africa. "[The researchers] are not denying that it happened," Trinkaus says, "just that it was less important than movement across Eurasia."

The degree of second migration is what was brought into doubt, not that all humans today share a common ancestor from the 3rd migration.

The idea that a “common people” with a shared history and culture should form a political unit is quite new.

Prior to the French Revolution, the idea was that political power devolved from the top (usually by divine right) and whatever people happened to live within the reach of the ruler should do what they were told, if they knew what was good for them.

The boundaries of the state would shift along with the power and influence and military success of the ruler. The modern idea that some people might object to living under one ruler (and thus one state) rather than other, based on some idea of shared history, would have been a strange idea to those used to living in autocratic societies.

Nationalism has been so successful at adhering the support of the masses to the establishment that few today even think to question it.

The first part of your statement is a pretty bold claim, especially when the nation is not a collection of tribes.

Maybe he is defining Nation separate from State, like Tamils or Kurds are a Nation without a state.

Another good example is the Polish nation, which lost and regained it's state more than once.

It's easy to get confused because of how nation, state, and nation-state are often conflated. The defining characteristic of a nation is a group of people tied by birth and anyone with a high school or better understanding of English etymology should know that. Language, culture, and other ancillary features are also all strongly heritable.

> The defining characteristic of a nation is a group of people tied by birth

No, the defining characteristic of a nation is a group of people united by a shared identity grounded in any or all of descent, culture, history, or language.

> and anyone with a high school or better understanding of English etymology should know that.

Anyone with a high school or better knowledge of language should know that etymology may suggest meaning, but is not a reliable guide to it.

> No, the defining characteristic of a nation is a group of people united by a shared identity grounded in any or all of descent, culture, history, or language

Wrong.

> Anyone with a high school or better knowledge of language should know that etymology may suggest meaning, but is not a reliable guide to it.

Right.

You had me at the etymology of nation (I cannot be a native of the US, because I wasn't born here, and that's what being native means). So treating nation different from state, got it. E.g. Navajo Nation is a thing, distinct from the US states that happen to be around it at a given time.

But then you lost me with language and culture being heritable (as opposed to strongly influenced by the people you grow up around, who of course are usually related to you).

Your comments seem to be objecting to the term "Nation" (which comes across as a pedantic nit-pick), as well as a nativist argument around heritable traits (which sounds vaguely racist, but dressed up in fancy language).