Kent Johnson
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject: One Country: A foregone conclusion |
 |
|
As with all the principles of the Baha'i Faith, elimination of prejudice,
independent investigation, universal auxiliarly language, equality of men
and women, I believe we see the Earth as One Country becoming more and more
so every year.
What is national identity?
Such an identity is a strong force in my country, the United States. We
grow up in national schools learning of ideals of "freedom" and "rule of
law" that we are taught are our national birthright. When I was in school,
these ideals were juxtaposed with the Soviet Union, whom, we were taught,
had no such ideals.
So our national identity is taught, and our patriotism includes pride in our
ability to assimilate many differing groups under our federal banner.
We have a pride in our national identity, and I assume other nations have a
similar sane patriotism. But what dictates what borders a country should
have? In the US the borders were dictated by wars. We just expanded as far
as we could, and then federated the territories into "states" and forcibly
united them with violence or the threat of violence.
Is there such a thing, then, as a justifiable border? Or are all national
borders political decisions held so with the threat of violence?
I think you can tell my answer to that question is: No.
I believe that political borders are less and less effective. That lines on
a map are arbitrary and increasingly un-enforceable. That true borders
exist only in airports, when people have crossed the arbitrary map-lines in
airplanes and register in a different country upon arrival. That the
registration of a person's location is the issue, not the border.
So national identity is taught, defended by sane patriotism, reason and in
most cases pride in the acceptance of divergent groups in our human
localities.
Borders are map-lines defended by international agreements, making nations
more and more federated, like states within a country, every year.
Iraq, we are told, does not want to split along ethnic lines. Why not? Is
there an advantage for Iraqis to being federated together, Kurdish with
Shi'ah with Sunni? Apparently so.
If that is so, is it not even more advantageous to be federated with other
groups, other countries, like Europe is federating?
If not, if there is no such advantage, then true borders are those between
ethnic groups, and that is the "true nation" that we should all split into
ethnic nations.
I think you can see that I think it is a foregone conclusion what will
happen. But I am wondering if anyone else sees it differently.
--Kent |
|
tsuki190
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:39 am Post subject: Re: One Country: A foregone conclusion |
|
|
The problem with splitting along ethnic lines is that they are hopelessly mixed
up anywhere that has a long history of settlement. Pretty much any area where
a group wants to split off their own ethnic state, is also filled with
lots of people
who are not part of that ethnic group and don't want to be oppressed by them.
Thus splitting up Iraq would have no end as various groups would want to opt
out of any new states, splintering everything into ever smaller pieces
or triggering
furious ethnic cleansing as in the Balkins. Ever higher levels of
unity seems like
a better way to go.
Cheers,
Tom
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 6:34 AM, Kent Johnson <kent@compx2.com> wrote:
| Quote: | As with all the principles of the Baha'i Faith, elimination of prejudice,
independent investigation, universal auxiliarly language, equality of men
and women, I believe we see the Earth as One Country becoming more and more
so every year.
What is national identity?
Such an identity is a strong force in my country, the United States. We
grow up in national schools learning of ideals of "freedom" and "rule of
law" that we are taught are our national birthright. When I was in school,
these ideals were juxtaposed with the Soviet Union, whom, we were taught,
had no such ideals.
So our national identity is taught, and our patriotism includes pride in our
ability to assimilate many differing groups under our federal banner.
We have a pride in our national identity, and I assume other nations have a
similar sane patriotism. But what dictates what borders a country should
have? In the US the borders were dictated by wars. We just expanded as far
as we could, and then federated the territories into "states" and forcibly
united them with violence or the threat of violence.
Is there such a thing, then, as a justifiable border? Or are all national
borders political decisions held so with the threat of violence?
I think you can tell my answer to that question is: No.
I believe that political borders are less and less effective. That lines on
a map are arbitrary and increasingly un-enforceable. That true borders
exist only in airports, when people have crossed the arbitrary map-lines in
airplanes and register in a different country upon arrival. That the
registration of a person's location is the issue, not the border.
So national identity is taught, defended by sane patriotism, reason and in
most cases pride in the acceptance of divergent groups in our human
localities.
Borders are map-lines defended by international agreements, making nations
more and more federated, like states within a country, every year.
Iraq, we are told, does not want to split along ethnic lines. Why not? Is
there an advantage for Iraqis to being federated together, Kurdish with
Shi'ah with Sunni? Apparently so.
If that is so, is it not even more advantageous to be federated with other
groups, other countries, like Europe is federating?
If not, if there is no such advantage, then true borders are those between
ethnic groups, and that is the "true nation" that we should all split into
ethnic nations.
I think you can see that I think it is a foregone conclusion what will
happen. But I am wondering if anyone else sees it differently.
--Kent
|
|
|
