But the feeling of oneness with the country does not rest solely upon the belief in blood kinship. Ethnologists are now pretty well agreed that there are no pure races, and that nationality does not coincide with race homogeneity. C. D. Burns points out that the Belgians, at the time they were seeking nationality, were of different blood. “The group had asserted their common ambition and their distinction from all other groups. They were not all the same blood or language, but their traditions and purposes were the same.”[98] It is not exclusively a common ancestry, then, that provides the basis for one to feel at one with his country. It is not so much a question of genesis as of condition. One feels at home in a country which in general has the same sort of character and life as his own. The largest factor is that of a common consciousness, no matter how produced. What this means may be understood from the words of Bosanquet: “Broadly speaking, the limit of a country or nation is the limit of a common experience, such that the people share the same mind and feelings, and can understand each other’s ways of living and make allowance for each other so that the same laws and institutions are acceptable and workable for all of them.”[99] The patriot in a foreign land feels truly like an innocent abroad, but his own country is home, sweet home to him. The love of the country as one’s objectified self coincides with the desire for attachment. Man, in other words, wants to objectify himself. He is not satisfied with solipcism. He wants a world, and a world that somehow represents himself. Without that he is a lost soul. “The man without a country” is pathetic because he has no attachment, no fixed world that he can call his own. The country provides a satisfying object of attachment, in which the patriot’s soul can be at rest.