* The author wishes to acknowledge the initial suggestions of Professors Khayyam Paltiel and Kenneth McRae of Carleton University in whose seminar on nationalism these thoughts were, with trepidation, first advanced.

¹ The Idea of Nationalism (New York, 1951), 10.

² The Shaping of the Modern Mind (New York, 1953), 151.

³ Essays on Nationalism (New York, 1926), 5–6.

⁴ Nationalism (New York, 1961), 139.Google ScholarPubMed

⁵ Ibid., 140.

⁶ Marxism and the National Question (Moscow, 1950), 16.

⁷ Barker, Ernest, National Character and the Factors in Its Formation (London, 1927), 17.Google Scholar

⁸ (Cambridge, Mass., 1955), 2.

⁹ Kautsky, John, Political Change in Underdeveloped Countries: Nationalism and Communism (New York, 1962), 30.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Report: General Introduction (Ottawa, 1967), xxiv.Google ScholarPubMed

¹¹ (Cambridge, Mass., 1953), 104.

¹² state and Nation (London, 1964), 33.

¹³ “Nation-Building in Africa,” in Deutsch, K. and Foltz, W. J., eds., Nation-Building (New York, 1963), 106.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The work of David Truman, Earl Latham, and subsequent interest group analysts, for example, is important in suggesting the basis for the mobilizing of effective interest activity. Thus see Truman, , The Governmental Process (New York, 1951)Google Scholar, and Latham, , The Group Basis of Politics (Ithaca, 1952).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Almond, Gabriel and Verba, Sidney, The Civic Culture (Boston, 1963), 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ Riker, William, Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance (Boston, 1964), 7.Google Scholar

¹⁷ “Nation and World,” a paper delivered to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 9, 1966, p. 2. The italics are added.

¹⁸ Political Unification (New York, 1965), 25.

¹⁹ Edelman, Murray, The Symbolic Uses of Politics (Urbana, 1964), 167.Google Scholar

²⁰ Lane, Robert, Political Ideology (New York, 1962), 381–99Google Scholar; Lane, Robert and Sears, David, Public Opinion (Englewood Cliffs, 1964), 40.Google Scholar Both discussions, while not necessarily in this context, emphasize the significance of loyalty to social groupings in providing a focus of orientation for individuals in a society. The impact of primary loyalty to a familiar ethnic group in an unfamiliar “host society” cannot be overemphasized in a discussion of that group's bargaining power.