This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is Nationalism a 21st Century Ethic - Isn't Nationalism more like Racism or Sexism than Patriotism?
Everywhere you look there are stories, articles, and studies showing a growing trend of 'global minded' citizens all around the world. We hear talk of the 'international community' in everyday articles about wars, embargos and conflict as well as arts and culture. Most know that our modern economy is highly interdependent and have come to terms with the realization that what happens in another country affects their domestic policy and the ordinary lives of their citizens. Why then is nationalism so common, among an already global world where everyday life is dictated more by what occurs in foreign countries than the people around you. From clothes, to food, to music and movies, to automobiles and gas can we afford to be nationalist any longer?
It seems that nationalism is very much like racism or sexism when your on the receiving end of the hostility and brutality it creates. People despising you just for existing or being born somewhere, something you cannot change, and even though we may be able to change our nationality (those of us who are wealthy enough) we must pick one, and any choice carries with it a long host of problems. In a global world shouldn't there be more space for global citizens, for people who don't want to listen to politicians rally against foreigners to scapegoat their policies and problems, or commit to other xenophobic tendencies.
The idea that one can be a nationalist and fair and balanced to other nations and peoples is very much based on the outdated and unjust idea of "separate but equal'. Which as we all know from history and everyday life never occurs and is merely a sweet way of asking to keep things the same, often said by those from the wealthiest and most privileged backgrounds in their respective nations.
To commit to a nation is to prioritize one country, one people, over 190 others, which means no matter who you are or where you are, you automatically care less about the majority of humanity. There is another way, right?
Closing Statement from Levi LCL
Thanks everyone for participating in a lively debate on nationalism, and the rise of supranationalism in the 21st century as a practical solution and identity to the global social problems we face.
Due to the breadth of replies, I suggest those who are still interested in arguing this case continue, and join 'The Universal Party' on Facebook - A platform of universal values aimed at creating a global political movement that rallies supranationalism and applies it to the world stage.
We are the first truly global generation and the 21st century belongs to us. Thus lets continue this debate.
Best,
LCL
Imri Rivas
Enrico Petrucco 20+
Jiddu Krishnamurti:
"When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of [everyone]. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a [person] who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; [such person] is concerned with the total understanding of [everyone].”
A world citizen.
Levi LCL 10+
uglyfatbloke brown
There is a tendency to assume that our own nationalism is not really nationalism at all, whereas that of others - particularly if it represents a threat to the system or cultural dispensation to which we are accustomed - is intrinsically bad. Most people think that the nationalism that led to independence for India or the United States was right and proper, likewise the efforts by Eastern European countries to liberate themselves from Soviet imperialism in more recent years. Even if the degree of oppression or discrimination or marginalisation is small..does a community not have a right - perhaps even a duty - to achieve self-determination? In a 'family' of political units, the 'children' surely have a right to grow up and leave home?
.
Levi LCL 10+
Nationalism is not a movement based on self-determination. That is the least of its function, most of American and Eastern European history does not occur within the short moments of their independence, but in the running of the country. Was Bosnia engaging in self-determination when they engaged in ethnic cleansing (as this was publicly stated), was America engaged in self-determination in Vietnam, Korea, the bombing of Japan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Cold War, Cuba and countless South American coups? History doesn't end with the declaration of independence, it continues and those justifications for its existence become increasingly twisted.
Self-determination was the justification of the Nazi Party in sparking World War 2, (before they went on about Jews), that German speaking peoples of the Rhine and other countries were repressed and mistreated and needed to be liberated and brought under a strong independent Germany, that cast off the economic, political, and military restrictions and hardships put on them by Europe and the United States. To challenge foreign powers, and lead their own destiny, and people liked it. But as we know German people under one nation wasn't the end of it.
We shouldn't forget about the negative aspects of history, because they don't suit our political beliefs. That's the point of learning history in the first place, to make better judgements. Nations states and self-determination aren't the ideas expressed by European scholars in fancy libraries, they have become dirty with blood, war, and genocide, and cannot be assumed to be merely positive social forces.
A better alternative is to realize the need for self-determination, a working fair government that doesn't marginalize a people, and further realize this does not come from separation from government but a new style of governance and concept of citizenship. Making your own country doesn't guarantee better governance, as South Sudan now know
uglyfatbloke brown
We certainly should not ignore material simply because it does not suit what we want to believe, but unfortunately that is exactly what people do. We all remember the 1945 Atlee government for the NHS, we don't remember it for the calamitous disaster it inflicted on the economy or it's cack-handed approach to Indian independence which still causes unnecessary misery today. In fact, if the Labour party had not abandoned their long-held commitment to proper Scottish home rule (dating back to Keir Hardie) there probably would not be an independence referendum happening in 2014.
Gil Lavie
Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
Today's nation state based world is a political anarchy because each state has absolute freedom about what it does with its resources, which are not really it's resources if one draws a line through it next day. The national borders are contrived and lines with history (mostly sad) marred with wars, aggression or simply accession by military power. Just look at the cross border conflicts over rivers, land and natural resources.
Nationalism is an idea that can make one person hero and villain on two sides of a line. It is an increasingly debatable and outdated concept in a world at the brink of environmental collapse.
Levi LCL 10+
Todd Levesque
Roberto Garcia
Levi LCL 10+
So if you ignore those who contribute but don't get included, nationalism does seem rather balanced. The problem is being proud of your nation isn't the end of the story on nationalism, its the beginning to every dark chapter, if you half-finish the narrative its sounds good. There is no such thing as un "radical' nationalism, as its predicated on others not having same citizenship rights.
Nationalism devalues human life, nobody can argue in reality the life of a Somali or Sudanese citizen gets the same treatment or rights of an American or Canadian. Peoples lives are only as good as their country is powerful, and with nationalism that will never change. African, South American, and most Asian citizens simply do not get treated the same, or even close to fair, no amount of patriotism will solve that.
The vast majority of the planet must accept their inferiority to others, or believe and work to create a new global system that gives their life equal value.
Derek Young 30+
Mark Meijer 100+
Patriotism is just one more disgusting, artificially divisive, self-righteous, self-congratulatory, contrived, iconographic ideology that has nothing in common with reality. For all intents and purposes, it's just another religion.
kilani tago
lly thanks TIM :)
kilani tago
kilani tago
David Chiu
If the bitter, angry tones of nationalism exist even amongst these innocent, unexperienced children in this urban, forward-thinking country, I am afraid to think about how else they must manifest. Such senseless hate. I am left with the motivating thought, "What is my responsibility in all of this?"
Levi LCL 10+
Few people knowing participate in prejudice, once its out in the open.
Ronald Vallecer
kilani tago
kilani tago
Tim Petersen
Levi LCL 10+
Tim Petersen
kilani tago
Tim Petersen
I also remember , what I call shattered illusions, times in my life when I understood the planet was a much different place then the one I had hoped to be born into. People were not sharing in hopes and visions for each other, and many secretly hate another's success or happiness, sometimes, even family. These thoughts anger me, yet to this day. At times, I must retreat to sort it out. People wonder what has happened to me when they have not heard or seen me for awhile. All these years later and I remain to struggle against the anger, the same anger that fuels my positive, pro-social actions through out the other days. I t may sound psychotic, I understand, but this anger was unleashed for thirty years of my life, leaving a path of destruction, theirs and mine. I began to understand the story of the two dogs fighting within my chest, told to me by an elderly friend of mine. My Grandmother knew of this rage, and used to recite her dreams of my un-doing in an effort to help me through the struggle of owning the turmoil within my soul. The batle for the bragging rights between my heart and mind. I share this because my prejudice is due to me, not you. You are concerned and thinking, for that I thank you. The world may not heal, but I do acquire understanding
Ronald Vallecer
kilani tago
Tim Petersen
Tim Petersen
"War is how we get freedom?"
I love it! I don't know how old you are and it doesn't matter, your insight inspires me. Many people who believe they are knowledgeable would tell you, "yes' we are fighting for our freedom, and spreading democracy." Wars are not fought to preserve freedom, in my humble and knowledgeable opinion, wars are fought to steal freedom and prop up fake democracies. In the next few years, we are going to hear and learn a lot about the many wars and thirty-+ invasions the u.s. has committed, the lies that led up to and the lies still perpetrated to this day in an effort to protect the guilty. Check out the new release at the bookstores by Juan Gonzales --"Harvest of Empire" The movie is soon to be released and we americans will know why I refer to this country as the united states of embarassment
check out www.DemocracyNow,org
If you have access to satellite tv, check out Free Speech TV channel 348 here on Direct TV, also Link TV on channel 375, also on Direct TV channel 375, great truthful programming, and as hard as it might be, as far as entertainment and cheap laughs go, quit watching cable and network news channels. I wish you the best and hope to hear more from you. You are welcome to e-mail me through TED's inhouse e-mai, anytimel. Tim
Tim Petersen
Tim Petersen
Nice observation, thanks for the question.
Henry Woeltjen 10+
Governance of a country is hard...the planet isn't even an option. Even with our current state of understanding governments fail. Therefore, I think this is more about "what to do" than "should we act".
Many people see the horrible events happening across the globe...and cringe that we cannot fly over and scoop everyone up. However, no actual solution ever came from irrational desires. We have to dissect real issues to change.
1) Green industry
How do we help countries develop and produce for their people?
2) Politics
How do we motivate foreign leaders to make correct decisions?
3) How do we do any of this without innovation?
I don't agree that we are currently capable of helping the planet. I do believe certain countries have the right idea. However, the capability to actually solve these problems for other countries...is impossible for several reasons.
Levi LCL 10+
Making broad scopes of foreign people and labelling them as not 'having the right idea' is different from racism how? Because a passport replaces skin? Would you like to tell people from India, China or a variety of African nations they need to 'make correct decisions'. I believe they tried that - its colonialism.
All people can make good decisions, the just need to collaborate. Nobody has a monopoly on being 'right'.
Henry Woeltjen 10+
Does that cover your guidelines?
Levi LCL 10+
The formation of nation-states resulted in World War 1 and 2, Vietnam, Korea (nation building in) Serbia, Georgia, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and countless wars across the planet over the idea of the 'national security' or its opposition.
Supranationalism is limited to the EU and UN as of today, and neither has created a war or conflict.
Henry Woeltjen 10+
Nation is a term that merely means an organized group of people in a certain "state".
This is not indicative of the actual behavior of that nation.
Nationalism is also not directly linked to any specific outcome as it is a concept.
We can apply nationalism correctly, but we choose to give value to individuals instead.
I think nationalism works if the nation itself has the right ideas in mind.
kilani tago
Henry Woeltjen 10+
Mark Hurych
See Jeremy Rifkin's "Empathic Civilization" and many others to expand this approach and scale it up to global proportions. Bucky Fuller was there. Nelson Mandela was there. I like the "Stage 5 Tribe" described by David Logan and others.
I like the image of the swarm or murmuration, as in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwSzDZnNjUk
-a reaction to the 2009 Copenhagen summit.
ta
Levi LCL 10+
Mark Hurych
Point taken; however I want to reexamine our direction. It might be that civilization, in all its positive connotations, may not be the same thing as governance, which seems to be more about political traditions than cultural by usual context. Paradigms of many species of power are shifting as I speak.
Trust is and always will be an issue and one of the central points of contention may be that many established leaders cannot seem to let go of warfare as a tool of change. Corporations and institutions have got to allow people at large to be engaged with the stewardship of our planet.
Real bonds between humans are key for the larger good. Compassion and empathy must be involved in future paradigms. Get all people to share the planet; that's the hard part. Finding ways to do it is relatively easy.
mark
shawn disney 10+
Levi LCL 10+
There are no systems of world law, but there can be - with enough sweat.
John Smith 30+
Alexander Albo
Then again, nothing is black and white. Is the US reluctance to use proportional representation mean that the country is a tyrannical dictatorship?
On the individual level however, it is still logical, desirable even, for people to sympathize for a country which guarantees their rights, to which they pay taxes, and which is constituted by citizens they identify with. If said country does not guarantee their citizenship a certain set of rights, or fails to uphold the law, then the whole point of the social contract is practically moot.
That does not mean that pride and commitment to a country which succeeds in doing this is misplaced - I find it necessary, and positive.
"True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else."
- Clarence Darrow
John Smith 30+
Of course, but it stops being so clear cut when two countries who fit your description go to war, which was the situation I was talking about, let alone when the "enemy" country is superior. Would an American patriot refuse to fight against a country which ensures its citizens all the same rights as the US, but with the addition of a national popular vote and more rights for gay people?
Levi LCL 10+
Pushing nationalist sentiment on people who've been at the receiving end of its discrimination, who's lives have been marred by crooked national leaders, and both exclusive and aggressive ethnic and social nationalism, is far more unnatural than asking them to liken to 'pan-human' feelings. Nationalism has made millions of refugees, two world wars, and genocides in every continent - it has far more opposition than universal humanist sentiment. It merely lacks a public theatre.
The optimism in nationalism was better reserved for the 17th century, before people could look at a map of the world, completely dominated by nation-states and realize, nothing has changed.
Nationalism will not stop or even competently handle a global epidemic of aids, war, halt poverty, or global warming - the 20th century is proof of this, as it saw the rise of each - the challenges of our time. Thus it shouldn't be our choice.
Ken brown 30+
I like what you say,when are you going to run for Prime minister?
Levi LCL 10+
Nothing lurks anywhere, there's no dark self that's likely a belief influenced by Christian mythology. Whatever this 'monster' is it certainty isn't genetic, making mistakes doesn't make you a beast, it just makes you wrong. There isn't suffering because the world is led by monsters, its led by people who are incompetent, mainly because their philosophies, methods and habits are to disregard most peoples opinions and help, instead of adding upon them.
Alexander Albo
I find it perfectly natural that I care more about my family, my friends, my neighbours, my community, and ultimately the country I reside in, with whom I share certain cultural characteristics, with whom I pool a small part of the fruit of my labour in the form of taxes, to safeguard our common liberties, uphold public order and guarantee every member of the community certain services. How are you going to expect people to care for people to whom they do not share a connection? This is the very basis of the Social Contract.
Levi LCL, you diminish the value of the individual, because you force upon people an altruism which is unnatural. The reality is that even if today's so called global economy is much more interconnected than ever before, people all across the world are still radically different - or at least percieve themselves to be so, which really is all that matters. Even if certain intellectual circles in the West (like TED) prefer to consider themselves "Global", this pan-human altruistic sentiment is not something closely as common in the developing world.
You can't force people into feeling a connection for people who live tens of thousands of km away, to which they have no apparent connection. Is it fair to hold individuals responsbile for the living conditions of people who live outside of our "Social contract"? What is it you wish to do? Abolish the nationstate? That would result in is the greatest transferring of wealth in human history, as the poorer parts of the world would undoubtedly demand to be "compensated" for their poverty by the industrialized West. To whom is that fair?
Have you ever stopped to consider the morals behind the system you are advocating?
John Smith 30+
But it doesn't imply nationalism: you see, by your definition a nationalist would refuse to fight in a war between Australia and New Zealand or Germany and the Netherlands, because those countries are very similar, in fact he would call for those countries to merge because together they stand stronger against other nations with different value systems, but that's not what nationalists do in reality. A nationalist sees his nation as better than all others, even if some of those other nations are incredibly similar to his own, that makes him different from your average person who just cares about values and a social contract.
Alexander Albo
As for your argument, I do appreciate your point, but I can't really agree completely. There's more to the type of national commitment (the one that I consider essential for the social contract and individual rights) besides values - there's also a large degree of fiscal reciprocity involved. The Dutch do not pay taxes to the German state and vice versa, which means that they have no right to influrnce over German internal affairs.
So no, I don't really agree with you that the national commitment (the one you considered as "not nationalism") I speak of means that it would be wrong for a Dutchman to go to war with a German. If the German invades his soil, he would be fully justified in defending his country.
However; everything above is really just a giant parenthesis in my argument.
My main problem lies with the underlying moral principle that everyone on earth has some sort of collective responsibility for the welfare of everyone else living on earth. That belief must inevitably lead to the conclusion that people are not responsible for their own actions. Translate this abstract principle into today's world, and suddenly I, as a taxpayer to be in an industrialized European country is to be held morally accountable for the misery of say, for example, Burkina Faso.
In other words, my life is nothing but that of a sacrificial animal - born to pay for a misery I had no hand in creating, giving my money to people I have never met and who will give me nothing in return. Does that constitute an honest principle of government?
John Smith 30+
That problem would be solved if the two countries merge, but even if they don't their tax structures could be so similar that nothing would really change, fiscally speaking, if the two countries merged, in other words the situation is then indistuingishable from one where there is a social contract between the citizens of the two countries.
John Smith 30+
No, it just means we're all responsible together.
"In other words, my life is nothing but that of a sacrificial animal - born to pay for a misery I had no hand in creating, giving my money to people I have never met and who will give me nothing in return."
You're in a position to help and you know those other people can't get rid of their problems without your help, while your comfortable lifestyle is related to the problems of the other people.
Benjamin L.W.
Timo X
Governments work by reallocating resources, even in the most minimalistic conceptualizations of government, people are forced to pay taxes or perform labor (e.g. in the army). Reallocation is implied in a governed system, and there must therefore always be someone who pays for others. It seems rather contradictory to object to this reallocation on principle and be in favor of nationalism at the same time, because rejecting the principle that reallocation can be a fair principle of government equals rejecting the idea of government in general.
Levi LCL 10+
Just because something is big doesn't mean its automatically bad.This is the assumption many people take towards anything global - it wont work - why? Because its not local. This is a false choice, as many local problems extend out into global problems, such as food, the environment, and women's rights. So unless your family doesn't have women, food, or live on the planet local solutions and systems wont do anything to defend their interests in meaningful or tangible ways, nation-states are archaic systems built long before a truly global and interdependent economy. Thinking for all mankind, is the only way to secure your livelihood any more.
The quote also illustrates how people from poor countries, living amongst extreme poverty can both think globally, and aspire on large scales (BRAC is largest NGO in the world). Just because your not a middle class westerner doesn't mean you cant think big. TED's audience extends far beyond the west.
I 'diminish the value of the individual', this was never said, or stated. It was assumed to disprove what did not exist. Personally I dont see how wanting individuals around the world to be treated equally, to have a fair chance at the same opportunities, and to have their well-being, ideas, and livelihood incorporated into the way the world works is particularly rude. What is perhaps dismissive of their individuality, is a nation which views them legaly as aliens, and treats them as such.
Human unity isn't about feeling pity for those who suffer- nobodies asking for pity, its about changing what limits our potential as a species.
Timo X
A good list, but there is an odd one in the bunch. Nations are not natural, they are social constructs. It is not the cultural characteristics that build the nation, but the other way around. That is, once people accept that they share a nation, they will look for and find the shared characteristics that build a national identity. But group identities are not limited to nations. A shared identity can be built in any group, e.g. a football team, a group of co-workers, dog owners, a book club, etc. The only prerequisite for developing a shared social identity is that a group of people shares something, and that is not a quality unique to either states or nations. The downside of nation as a social adhesive, is, as Levi LCL rightly points out, that one's nation is hard to change. So why build shared identities around them? The only use I can think of for a national identity is war, as has been mentioned by many people in this thread already.
"My main problem lies with the underlying moral principle that everyone on earth has some sort of collective responsibility for the welfare of everyone else living on earth. That belief must inevitably lead to the conclusion that people are not responsible for their own actions."
I fail to see why it should inevitably lead to that conclusion. Responsibility, as I see it, comes in degrees (as does welfare, by the way).
Fábio Nunes
People only defend nationalism when they want to do something that goes against human dignity. By arguing that they are doing it for their country (such as wars, terrorism, crusades) they are underrating important human values, that in normal circumstances would stop them from these acts of war.
Levi LCL 10+
scott lee
Often, in the name of globalization, local communities lose their ability to control their destiny. Development of their home becomes put in the hands of foreign interests. Is it wrong for people to defend their home, their rights, their laws and regulations?
I believe it is good for the global community that the world is made of a mosaic of nations, rather than a global oligarchy. Different nations try different policies and have different cultures. The successes and failures of other countries makes us all richer in knowledge of how to organize a society. Diversity of nations is a strength, not a weakness.
Similarly, my country is divided into provinces, regional districts, municipalities, ect. We don't say that it is prejudice for people to be concerned with politics in the city in which they live. In fact it is good that people be involved; that's how democracy works. Nations are the same only on a larger scale.
I agree that one should not feel superior just because of what country they are from, but that's not what nationalism is about. Previous generations worked hard for what we have today and it is not wrong to defend it.
Levi LCL 10+
Vary rarely your country does anything to help others outside helping itself, if ever. This is commonly accepted. So how can it be in the interest of most humans? The fact is, its become completely acceptable for nations to be blindly selfish, nationalism preaches looking out for yourself and 'Realpolitik'. Where is the nation that acts benevolently? There isn't any, changing that means changing how we see ourselves, and categorizing people beyond the terrority in which they where born.
Once again, I would say many people do feel superior. How many people really feel that they are equal to the citizens in Somalia, Haiti, or Sudan? No they feel pity, and pity is not a feeling felt amongst equals, its felt for those who are beneath you.
Where you where born is not who you are. We are who we choose to be.
*If nationalism was capable of making a world full of patriotic, healthy, active communities that support each other regardless of their identities. I would support it, but that's not the world, and that's not how doctrines of national unity play out. I prefer to think people before us worked hard to make the world a better place, not their country.
scott lee
Governments to engage in efforts to help other countries. You could argue that they should be doing it more. I would agree with you. You could argue that governments should not use military intervention. None of this has anything to do with existence of nations, its about their behavior. They could behave better and still be nations.
I do not see what kind of alternative you are proposing. How do you think people should be organized?
People may be arrogant about their country, but that's not what nationalism is. Nationalism is about nations, not about snobby individuals.
Levi LCL 10+
It is a strange argument to make 'If I use my money to feed my family am I discriminating against all people in the world that I didn't invite over for dinner' to criticise global thinking, which means on a national level you think its sustainable to invite everyone to dinner. It doesn't make sense, it seems like an extreme example made to make an idea look bad, but without having any of the characteristics of the problem being described. It's just a random negative line. There is no expectation to feed everyone yourself, as if somehow this demonstrates an overextension of state resources. If there was to be projects done globally, they would be funded globally, there would be no overextension of an individual state, it would be irrational.
Overcoming nationalism does not mean nation-states should be more active overseas, it means there should be a supranational system of global governance. Nations are incapable of doing global projects reliably or solving global problems, which is why none exist today. You cannot give behavioural lessons to nations, the very nature of sovereignty and independence makes standardizing their behaviour or norms impossible. Nations are inherently small-minded, just as tribes are inherently small-minded, they only think for themselves and make cooperation chaotic, erratic, and by large completely unsuccessful. The only times nations cooperate (temporarily), is to discriminate, where is there an alliance of well behaved countries? None exist, there's always someone on the receiving end of their rhetoric and polices.
There should be global systems of governance, which address global problems. It is an exceptionally straightforward desire.
scott lee
I am glad that you have began the discussion about the alternative you are proposing. The "supranational system of global governance". It is a more constructive talking point than the idea that people who support their nation are inherently prejudice.
As far as this idea of supranational governance, I don't know what form you want it to take. We do have the UN. We also have the WTO, World Bank, IMF, NAFTA, EU, G8, G20 and many transnational corporations that participate in governance in countries all over the world. You may argue that nations make up these organizations (except corporations), then again, the US is made of states.
I don't always agree with what these organizations do. Sometimes they are ineffective and often they are effective but acting towards goals that I am at odds with. However, global governance is on its way, and gets stronger over time. It is achieved through the negotiations of nations. Tearing down nations will not bring us closer to global governance, it will bring us farther from it.
Levi LCL 10+
No the Chinese are not all burning Japans flags, a tiny tiny, less than a percent are - but because its convient to Chinese national government, its sensationalized, if it disagreed with their leaders agendas you'd hear nothing about it. Same goes for america, where anti-war opinions where effectively blocked from the news for years during which decisions where made, massive union rallies are never broadcast. People go far beyond their convient national stertoytpe, the Chinese do this, the Zimbabwe people do this, the French do that - no, no they dont they're just normal people doing normal stuff, and being hyped into conflict over issues more often than not benefit nobody but the select few running a nation.
The WTO, World Bankd, IMF, EU, G8, UN are all run by nations - that is their flaw. They cant decide on anything but short-sighted business opportunities that dont benifit their populations more often than not. If anything their living proof that nationalism is toxic.
One would not need to 'tear' down nations to create a system of global governance. Just as people did not eliminate minorities to get rid of racism. What would need to be created is a global system of governance above nations, first regional, then global. Which gives the ability for national leaders to become regional, then global leaders (also people could run directly for these offices) and the consensus of people outside their community would be vital.
John Smith 30+
scott lee
Levi LCL 10+
The market can provide for the diversity of interests, governments provide the basics. There would be no need to revise how people feel, think or act in order to provide a system of global governance, merely a confrontation of outdated prejudice, indeed the only way society ever seems to move forward.
Levi LCL 10+
Prejudice is weakness, not strength. There can bee something deeply inspiring about questioning its need in our lives.
JP Piert
and can be all the -isms
or just none at all, as a people.
Declaring and judging however is either by human reasoning as an "understanding" from what I believe is one of only two choices (with a lot of warm and fuzzy inter-discourse, connectivity to talk about):
1)
Reasoned Nationalism by imagination(s) (no higher power around) per the humanism of only wordly-human systemic understanding in our psyche and flesh.
2)
People-ism (Natioinalism) in a Giver's understanding with a Giver's judgement of a global people (Natio-Globalism).
Miguel PEZ
The universe has opened to us. To think of nationalism as a necessity is like living in the past, living in isolation from human advances, being short sighted or simply stupid. We are all in this little spec of star dust together and our destiny is the same, no matter what part of the planet you come from or even if you are human, animal or otherwise.
Levi LCL 10+