Both race and nation are, in my view, very similar concepts because they are both socially constructed. American constitution, although by far not perfect, is still the fairest system in modern civilisations because it gives rights to everybody – not based on a particular race or nation. What is a nation then? Is there inherent difference between two nations or is it just a matter of choice, a social construct? Are Germans more hard-working and diligent, are Italian and Souther states more indolent (inherently) than others? I think that it is more prudent to look for outer conditions. For example when asking why northern states such as Norway or Sweden have very high suicide rate, it has been proved that the amount of darkness thorughout the year being higher than in other parts of Europe autimatically leads to a higher tendency to suicidal behaviour. Similarly people from warmer climate were not forced to store so much food for colder times in the year as oposed to those in middle Europe and thus were not used to working and thinking about food as much as people in less warmer climates. This claim is of course very general, but I believe that is relevant in the “national differences” debate.
The whole bussiness of looking for a naiton and clingling to it seems very hypocritical to me. For example I myself am half German and half Czech, does my choice of belonging to any of those “nations” make me any different than I was before chosing the other nationality? Of course not and thus it is more prudent to think about nation not in the “inherent traces” paradigm but in social-educational-cultural point of view. Not given by birth but by the choice of belonging to what one believes is right and good.