Socially created identities refer not only to a relevant other, but are also linked to space and territory – whether individuals belonging to the family farm, the ethnic group's identification with a homeland, or the nation's claim to a specific territory of the state. As such, land is not only a territory considered as an exclusive domain of an individual or group, it is also subject to cultural and social organisation and becomes part of individuals' or groups' symbolic representation of the world (Malkki 1992). ‘Human societies’, writes Mach, ‘have physical and conceptual relations between themselves and their land’ (1993: 172), relationships which are in a continuous process of creation, maintenance and negotiation.

During certain historical periods the forging of such links between people and their land, as part of a nationalist expression, is much more pertinent and needed. In particular during conflicts and wars, a government needs to produce national symbols in order to legitimate the resources used and the sacrifices offered to protect the ‘homeland’, as examples in this study show. What is important to keep in mind is that when a nationalist ideology is claiming territorial rights for a specific group of people – and cements this relationship by political, social and cultural means – it not only involves the right of that specific group to inhabit a particular territory; it also implies that other groups of people are not allowed those prerogatives. This may result in an explicit process of identifying ‘foreigners’, ‘aliens’ and ‘others’ in their midst and construing them as enemies.