It is very simple to justify when you consider the US alone.
However, if you choose virtually any other countries that you might consider to be nation-states, then you could describe them in the same manner. The way I read your definition, you describe two polarities, which lend themselves to any conclusion about any country, depending on which is emphasized.
I felt like the UK, Pakistan, and Israel were three good examples of countries claimed by some to be nation-states that show the definition is complicated and subjective.
And indeed, it already was denied that the UK is a nation-state, in this thread!
Totally agree, the definition is complicated and subjective! Really more of a spectrum than a clear binary. You could certainly argue that the US has a "shared history" that unites its various ethnic groups, thereby making it a single nation. Or you could argue that different racial groups and immigrant communities have had sufficiently distinct experiences that they shouldn't be lumped together.
However, if you choose virtually any other countries that you might consider to be nation-states, then you could describe them in the same manner. The way I read your definition, you describe two polarities, which lend themselves to any conclusion about any country, depending on which is emphasized.
I felt like the UK, Pakistan, and Israel were three good examples of countries claimed by some to be nation-states that show the definition is complicated and subjective.
And indeed, it already was denied that the UK is a nation-state, in this thread!