New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
Sign up
122
posted 1 year ago by RealWildRanter on scored.co (+0 / -0 / +122Score on mirror )
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
11
HerrBBQ on scored.co
1 year ago 11 points (+0 / -0 / +11Score on mirror ) 2 children
The Romans originally had a fairly concrete understanding of the difference between a "Roman citizen" and a person who was merely subject to Roman rule, which we would today call a "resident" or "national". Citizens were true Romans who had the right to vote and other legal privileges. Non-citizens were not truly Roman. As their empire declined, more and more subjects were granted citizenship and this distinction was lost. Big surprise, the more foreigners were accepted as "Roman", the more unstable the government became and the more quality of life declined for the true Roman people.
Reddestlegsaround on scored.co
1 year ago 2 points (+0 / -0 / +2Score on mirror )
Many places still adopt a similar hierarchy, the Emerati of Dubai being similar for example. A good system to retain sovereignty whilst remaining realistic.
Kopkot on scored.co
1 year ago 2 points (+0 / -0 / +2Score on mirror ) 1 child
No a national is a member of the people. For instance you were a Yugoslav citizen but a Croatian national. Nation comes from birth. Natio is old Latin for born (of).
HerrBBQ on scored.co
1 year ago 0 points (+0 / -0 ) 1 child
That may be what national should mean, but in practice today, it just means a legal resident with the right to get a passport, but not a citizen.
Kopkot on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
No it's important to understand that national is race based and citizenship is country. It's been obfuscated on purpose like sex and gender
Toast message