i really think that nationality is just about the worse thing that humans have
ever invented. it should never have existed IMO, and seperating the world into
countries is pointless.
comments anyone?
Its not something that's invented, its just something that happened. To use an
analogy: When water flows, it subsequently makes a puddle. As the puddle grows
bigger, it may get in touch wit another puddle and the 2 puddles join. It is
here though where the analogy stops. Since that puddle may or may not
merge.
People tend to gather with other people with whom they can associate and share
an identity. These people do not want to loose there own identity by merging
with other groups of people.
One day though, the world, which is already being globalized, may become one
formal nation. But personally I think thats unlikely - as every nation has
provinces, and as every province has regions, etc., so the world my already by
typecast as one human nation. For the problam is, to be a nation, you have to
discern yourselve from others. You can't be a stand alone nation.
Too many differences. Tribalism, nationalism, religion, political beliefs, race.
Just look at the conflicts going on in places like Eastern Europe, Africa, and
the Middle East.
If you try to force a global government on the world, you'll only start a whole
lot of rebellions and civil wars.
well, it does keep ethnic groups from the melting pot. If their were no boundies
than I'm sure some cultures and traditions would disappear/blend into something
completely different.
Quote by joemighty16Its not something
that's invented, its just something that happened. To use an analogy: When water
flows, it subsequently makes a puddle. As the puddle grows bigger, it may get in
touch wit another puddle and the 2 puddles join. It is here though where the
analogy stops. Since that puddle may or may not merge.
People tend to gather with other people with whom they can associate and share
an identity. These people do not want to loose there own identity by merging
with other groups of people.
When you go to a meeting, social or otherwise, you inadvertably move towards the
people you know best, and some kind of
cliqu����¯�Ã(...)
is formed. Nationalities are basically bigger forms of those cliques.
One day though, the world, which is already being globalized, may become one
formal nation. But personally I think thats unlikely - as every nation has
provinces, and as every province has regions, etc., so the world my already by
typecast as one human nation. For the problam is, to be a nation, you have to
discern yourselve from others. You can't be a stand alone
nation.
Yea, I agree that it's human nature to form groups and stuff, but groups of
friends are formed because we like each other's company, while nations are
formed due to differences between our ancestors or the people in charge. It's
like my father hate yours and thats why I hate you, but without our fathers'
feelings for each other maybe we could have been the best of friends.
merged: 11-13-2005 ~ 02:08pm
Quote by RanmaSToo many differences.
Tribalism, nationalism, religion, political beliefs, race. Just look at the
conflicts going on in places like Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Middle
East.
If you try to force a global government on the world, you'll only start a whole
lot of rebellions and civil wars.
It may be worth it for the future generations though........
merged: 11-13-2005 ~ 02:16pm
Quote by jaszi5well, it does keep ethnic
groups from the melting pot. If their were no boundies than I'm sure some
cultures and traditions would disappear/blend into something completely
different.
I don't think cultures and traditions should be kept the same. I mean cultures
have been changed so differently through the past centuries, so why so we keep
it the way it is now?
I personally think that cultures should be allowed to change and merge like it
has always been. My ancestors' way of life does not have to be mine. We should
all choose our cultures instead of accepting that we are born with it and that
we would be losing our roots or whatever if we don't follow the
traditions.
All cultures and traditions are man-made and so i don't see why they should not
be changed.
Quote by jaszi5well, it does keep ethnic
groups from the melting pot. If their were no boundies than I'm sure some
cultures and traditions would disappear/blend into something completely
different.
Let's put that theory to the test. Let's take three ethnic groups that
traditionally hate each other, squash them into the same boundary that we
ourselves make up, and see how they do.
Oh, wait. We've done that. Iraq.
Years ago, Iraq did not exist. Three ethnic groups, Sunni, Kurd, and Shiite,
were put into the same boundary by the United Nations.
They've been murdering each other ever since. They don't venture out of their
traditional regions very much, and so one man, a Sunni from the extreme
minority, seized power. He started to murder those who disagreed with him, and
tried very hard to wipe out both the Shiites and the Kurds.
Even now, under a "unified government" that has no official policy of
murdering any of the three groups, the divides between them are still prevalent.
The fact of the matter is that you could erase all boundaries, and people would
still behave in the same way. A Texan from Abeline or Midland would no more fit
in with a Californian from San Francisco then than they do now, and that's
within the same nation, never mind other nations.
Quote by jaszi5well, it does keep ethnic
groups from the melting pot. If their were no boundies than I'm sure some
cultures and traditions would disappear/blend into something completely
different.
Let's put that theory to the test. Let's take three ethnic groups that
traditionally hate each other, squash them into the same boundary that we
ourselves make up, and see how they do.
Oh, wait. We've done that. Iraq.
Years ago, Iraq did not exist. Three ethnic groups, Sunni, Kurd, and Shiite,
were put into the same boundary by the United Nations.
They've been murdering each other ever since. They don't venture out of their
traditional regions very much, and so one man, a Sunni from the extreme
minority, seized power. He started to murder those who disagreed with him, and
tried very hard to wipe out both the Shiites and the Kurds.
Even now, under a "unified government" that has no official policy of
murdering any of the three groups, the divides between them are still prevalent.
The fact of the matter is that you could erase all boundaries, and people would
still behave in the same way. A Texan from Abeline or Midland would no more fit
in with a Californian from San Francisco then than they do now, and that's
within the same nation, never mind other nations.
so u're saying that with or without boundaries things will be the same..... then
what the hell are boundaries still in place for?
by the way, a lot of countries are multi-racial n multi-cultured, and most of
them are not having fights between each other every other week.
merged: 11-14-2005 ~ 12:35am
Quote by bindermichiYou just should
not forget taht this isn't a typical human issue.
Many mamals form groups/tribes to secure their own existence. Some of them even
fight between groups... for territory, and power
...just like we do, so I would say countrys and wars are pretty natural in this
world, even if they are wrong to our own moral
standards.
I don't think they are wrong to our own moral standards. It's just that there is
no justification to their existance.
Other animals can do what they do but we don't have to follow right? Anyway,
most animals form groups with their own species, not within their species.
Quote by rsocg
so u're saying that with or without boundaries things will be the same..... then
what the hell are boundaries still in place for?
.
Think of it as a "I won't kill you zone." Basically the borders exist
so that we don't kill each other. We enforce those borders for the same reason.
Killing each other takes alot more time and energy than it does to just build a
wall and maintain it.
Quote by bindermichiYou just should
not forget taht this isn't a typical human issue.
Many mamals form groups/tribes to secure their own existence. Some of them even
fight between groups... for territory, and power
...just like we do, so I would say countrys and wars are pretty natural in this
world, even if they are wrong to our own moral
standards.
I don't think they are wrong to our own moral standards. It's just that there is
no justification to their existance.
Other animals can do what they do but we don't have to follow right? Anyway,
most animals form groups with their own species, not within their
species.
The justification would be to protect each other from others who are different
and who think are better, or those who want to colonize. It has been that way
and it will be that way for as long as human beings exist. Yes, it is our human
nature, that in itself is reason enough. Who will defend you against those who
are different--either in appearance, beliefs, etc.--and think they deserve to
extend their power beyond you. What might be consider immoral are the means by
which power and territory is obtained. But it's definitely in our nature to form
groups and guard our territory, just as animals do. Individuals within species
form groups to defend against others within the same species but that belong to
a different community.
I don't believe that countries should meddle in others' affairs. I believe that
the UN should supervise the actions of nations with consent of those being
overlooked but no one nation should call all the shots. The possibility of one
world order is very unlikely but you can bet it will be attempted. Because
people are so different from each other around the world, it will fail. Not all
of us can get along. Just look at my sig, that should tell you something about
my feelings towards those who I, and many, deem inferior because of their
twisted ideas.
Quote by rsocgAnyway, most animals form
groups with their own species, not within their
species.
Depends on which animals you're talking about. Chimpanzees form their own
communities. They attack any lone chimp from another community, beating and
biting him to death. They wage war on other communities for territory and
resources.
Insects like ants wage war on their own species and other insects.
Quote:
Think of it as a "I won't kill you zone." Basically the borders exist
so that we don't kill each other. We enforce those borders for the same reason.
Killing each other takes alot more time and energy than it does to just build a
wall and maintain it.
yea right, if that's the case why aren't countries mono-cultured or mono-racial?
since the boundaries are in place at the moment, why do terrorists still exist?
they should not since 'the borders exist so that we don't kill each
other'.
merged: 11-14-2005 ~ 07:55pm
Quote:
The justification would be to protect each other from others who are different
and who think are better, or those who want to colonize. It has been that way
and it will be that way for as long as human beings exist. Yes, it is our human
nature, that in itself is reason enough. Who will defend you against those who
are different--either in appearance, beliefs, etc.--and think they deserve to
extend their power beyond you. What might be consider immoral are the means by
which power and territory is obtained. But it's definitely in our nature to form
groups and guard our territory, just as animals do. Individuals within species
form groups to defend against others within the same species but that belong to
a different community.
I don't believe that countries should meddle in others' affairs. I believe that
the UN should supervise the actions of nations with consent of those being
overlooked but no one nation should call all the shots. The possibility of one
world order is very unlikely but you can bet it will be attempted. Because
people are so different from each other around the world, it will fail. Not all
of us can get along. Just look at my sig, that should tell you something about
my feelings towards those who I, and many, deem inferior because of their
twisted ideas.
I'm not talking about ppl controlling each other. Having a one world order does
not mean that some ppl have to be inferior. They can co-exist just like many are
in some countries. people from different countries have negative views of each
other because of these countries-thing seperating them.
Take Japan and China for example. there are a lot of hostility because people
from these countries as different from each other. If there had been not
boundaries seperating them, and a war had broken out, the aftermath would not
have been like it is now. It would have been viewed as a riot and there would be
no accusations between ppl.
btw, i can't see ur sig. but if i guess correctly, i'm deem inferior because of
my 'twisted ideas' right?
merged: 11-14-2005 ~ 07:59pm
Quote:
Depends on which animals you're talking about. Chimpanzees form their own
communities. They attack any lone chimp from another community, beating and
biting him to death. They wage war on other communities for territory and
resources.
Insects like ants wage war on their own species and other insects.
yea, ok i can't disagree with this point, but i can see that what is said above
shows that animals, and so do humans, are aggressive towards each other because
of differences between them. Humans have enough differences naturally, so the
difference of nationality is really unnecessary.
The differences of nationality may seem "unnecessary" but that does
nothing to change the fact that those differences exist. It is a a severe oversimplification to say an abstract
concept like 'nationality' or 'country' was invented. I think it is closer to
the truth to say that the idea of 'country' evolved over many thousands of
years, starting with our biological ancestors and their primitive societies. But
honestly, the origin of nationality is besides the point because you seem to
categorize many of the world's problems as consequences of nationalistic
differentiation. That's just false at best and dangerous at the worst. Even
within the same country, you have divisions based on geography, religion,
politics and income just to name a few. I live on the north-east coast of the
U.S. but have family in the south and many of our views differ. I say this to
demonstrate that taking away the difference of nationality doesn't mean people
will suddenly be peaceful towards everyone. Are you familiar with the concept of
urban gang-warfare? Many times the differences are strictly geographic where one
gang is from one part of the city and the other gang is from another part of the
same city. Sometimes the element of ethnic heritage plays a factor but just as
often it doesn't.
The more I think about it, the more confused I am as to what you are actually
asking. Even if there were a single world-wide government, people would still
differentiate into various groups and we would still have periods of violent
conflict due to things like political unrest, economic depressions, religious
issues etc. Just because we have the concept of nationality and country doesn't
mean that we won't fight amongst our own. The conflict in Ireland is a good
example. The battle lines there are not drawn strictly along national lines. The
element of religous difference is just as important. Your example of China and
Japan I find to be flawed simply because if it were true, then the idea of civil
war would only be an idea and not a reality.
Quote by elessar007The differences of
nationality may seem "unnecessary" but that does nothing to change the
fact that those differences exist. It is a a severe oversimplification to say an abstract concept like
'nationality' or 'country' was invented. I think it is closer to the truth to
say that the idea of 'country' evolved over many thousands of years, starting
with our biological ancestors and their primitive societies. But honestly, the
origin of nationality is besides the point because you seem to categorize many
of the world's problems as consequences of nationalistic differentiation. That's
just false at best and dangerous at the worst. Even within the same country, you
have divisions based on geography, religion, politics and income just to name a
few. I live on the north-east coast of the U.S. but have family in the south and
many of our views differ. I say this to demonstrate that taking away the
difference of nationality doesn't mean people will suddenly be peaceful towards
everyone. Are you familiar with the concept of urban gang-warfare? Many times
the differences are strictly geographic where one gang is from one part of the
city and the other gang is from another part of the same city. Sometimes the
element of ethnic heritage plays a factor but just as often it doesn't.
The more I think about it, the more confused I am as to what you are actually
asking. Even if there were a single world-wide government, people would still
differentiate into various groups and we would still have periods of violent
conflict due to things like political unrest, economic depressions, religious
issues etc. Just because we have the concept of nationality and country doesn't
mean that we won't fight amongst our own. The conflict in Ireland is a good
example. The battle lines there are not drawn strictly along national lines. The
element of religous difference is just as important. Your example of China and
Japan I find to be flawed simply because if it were true, then the idea of civil
war would only be an idea and not a reality.
for your imformation,i'm trying to say that there is no need for countries and
boundaries to be present .
CORRECTION : there would be no war if Japan and China and all other countries
are not different countries. Japan started the war because it needed resources
to support its economy. If they were not seperated, then China or some other
could have shipped what Japan needed over and there will be no cause to fight.
btw, if i remember correctly, japan were short on resources because the US
stopped selling them.
I agree that there are differences between ppl even in the same country. its
just that since it is so then the boundaries are useless in 'keeping differences
seperated and prevent blablablah '.
In your gang-warfare example, why isn't the city seperated with more boundaries
to keep ppl to themselves? i would say because its useless, like those in place
between countries.
I also wonder what support that gang-warfare thing gives to you in trying to say
that boundaries between countries are necessary. your example only shows how
useless those boundaries are.
Also,
Quote: Are you familiar with the
concept of urban gang-warfare? Many times the differences are strictly
geographic where one gang is from one part of the city and the other gang is
from another part of the same city
Are you? You sound like you have witnessed them lots of times and these fights
break out every few days.
I subscribe to every word elessar007 wrote adding only that in a simple way to
say it (not that it is simple) its not about border lines or religion or
whatever... Its about the people. All the destructive nature described above is
a result of mankind s own dumb way of sorting things out... and it wont be
uniting the world in a big nation that will make it any better.
Border lines are only a sign of mankind s nature...
Human have differences is something obvious. But to bring up those differences
to separate us and put us into some "boxes" named nations are
something I don't feel like it.
Quote by anisweeperI subscribe to
every word elessar007 wrote adding only that in a simple way to say it (not that
it is simple) its not about border lines or religion or whatever... Its about
the people. All the destructive nature described above is a result of mankind s
own dumb way of sorting things out... and it wont be uniting the world in a big
nation that will make it any better.
Border lines are only a sign of mankind s nature...
er so you agree that national boundaries are useless?
merged: 11-14-2005 ~ 10:24pm
Quote by tsukasa888Human have
differences is something obvious. But to bring up those differences to separate
us and put us into some "boxes" named nations are something I don't
feel like it.
at last ! someone who actually agrees with me
merged: 11-14-2005 ~ 10:26pm
Quote by RingbellNations will always
excist as long as there are humans who have different and/or similar ideals and
ways of life.
Not really. We just need to know that the ideas of those in charge doesnt need
to be ours. If we continue to then there will continue to be nations around.
Not really. We just need to know that the ideas of those in charge doesnt need
to be ours. If we continue to then there will continue to be nations around.
If we don't have leaders we will be a mindless rabble without a goal or cause.
We are animals that live in herds, and herds need leaders otherwise it will
scatter or accomplish nothing, or turn on itself. People always seek for
guidance and leadership. Thus nations will be created. Just as animals have
territories we have nations.
Not really. We just need to know that the ideas of those in charge doesnt need
to be ours. If we continue to then there will continue to be nations around.
If we don't have leaders we will be a mindless rabble without a goal or cause.
We are animals that live in herds, and herds need leaders otherwise it will
scatter or accomplish nothing, or turn on itself. People always seek for
guidance and leadership. Thus nations will be created. Just as animals have
territories we have nations.
why not thus we need a leader? a central world government's a leader.........
Quote by rsocgwhy not thus we need a
leader? a central world government's a leader.........
thats impossible it will never happen so stop dreaming cause of the different
nationalities not being racist or mean but its the truth do u think chinese can
take white people as a leader or do u think white people can take a black as a
leader even though u say ur not racist but thats only u u dont represent
everyone
Quote by rsocgwhy
not thus we need a leader? a central world government's a leader.........
thats impossible it will never happen so stop dreaming cause of the different
nationalities not being racist or mean but its the truth do u think chinese can
take white people as a leader or do u think white people can take a black as a
leader even though u say ur not racist but thats only u u dont represent
everyone
why not? i don't mind.
are the US people are all whites? and the UK?
my country is multi-cultured with a chinese as prime-minister and an indian as
president, and we're doing fine.
BTW, I do not represent everyone, but that applies to you too. YOU being racist
doesn't mean everyone is.
i never said i was racist i dont mind cause its eventually not my problem but
think about it if people werent racist how come USA has a rule that u must be a
pure american in order to be the president some of the countries only accept
their own nationalities
There is no such thing as a world with no countries or nations. Anyplace that
has existed it has degenerated into tribal warlords on one scale, or dictators
on another (frequently being repeatedly overthrown in their little banana
republics).
Present an option that actually makes sense as an alternative and I am pretty
sure you could get people to listen to it, but unless you succeed at that, I
would advise you not to get upset when people sit there poking holes in the
theory. Are nations a pain in the butt? At times, sure. But given the
alternatives, I'll stick with it.
i really think that nationality is just about the worse thing that humans have ever invented. it should never have existed IMO, and seperating the world into countries is pointless.
comments anyone?
Its not something that's invented, its just something that happened. To use an analogy: When water flows, it subsequently makes a puddle. As the puddle grows bigger, it may get in touch wit another puddle and the 2 puddles join. It is here though where the analogy stops. Since that puddle may or may not merge.
People tend to gather with other people with whom they can associate and share an identity. These people do not want to loose there own identity by merging with other groups of people.
When you go to a meeting, social or otherwise, you inadvertably move towards the people you know best, and some kind of cliqué is formed. Nationalities are basically bigger forms of those cliques.
One day though, the world, which is already being globalized, may become one formal nation. But personally I think thats unlikely - as every nation has provinces, and as every province has regions, etc., so the world my already by typecast as one human nation. For the problam is, to be a nation, you have to discern yourselve from others. You can't be a stand alone nation.
Too many differences. Tribalism, nationalism, religion, political beliefs, race. Just look at the conflicts going on in places like Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.
If you try to force a global government on the world, you'll only start a whole lot of rebellions and civil wars.
well, it does keep ethnic groups from the melting pot. If their were no boundies than I'm sure some cultures and traditions would disappear/blend into something completely different.
Yea, I agree that it's human nature to form groups and stuff, but groups of friends are formed because we like each other's company, while nations are formed due to differences between our ancestors or the people in charge. It's like my father hate yours and thats why I hate you, but without our fathers' feelings for each other maybe we could have been the best of friends.
merged: 11-13-2005 ~ 02:08pm
It may be worth it for the future generations though........
merged: 11-13-2005 ~ 02:16pm
I don't think cultures and traditions should be kept the same. I mean cultures have been changed so differently through the past centuries, so why so we keep it the way it is now?
I personally think that cultures should be allowed to change and merge like it has always been. My ancestors' way of life does not have to be mine. We should all choose our cultures instead of accepting that we are born with it and that we would be losing our roots or whatever if we don't follow the traditions.
All cultures and traditions are man-made and so i don't see why they should not be changed.
You just should not forget taht this isn't a typical human issue.
Many mamals form groups/tribes to secure their own existence. Some of them even fight between groups... for territory, and power
...just like we do, so I would say countrys and wars are pretty natural in this world, even if they are wrong to our own moral standards.
Let's put that theory to the test. Let's take three ethnic groups that traditionally hate each other, squash them into the same boundary that we ourselves make up, and see how they do.
Oh, wait. We've done that. Iraq.
Years ago, Iraq did not exist. Three ethnic groups, Sunni, Kurd, and Shiite, were put into the same boundary by the United Nations.
They've been murdering each other ever since. They don't venture out of their traditional regions very much, and so one man, a Sunni from the extreme minority, seized power. He started to murder those who disagreed with him, and tried very hard to wipe out both the Shiites and the Kurds.
Even now, under a "unified government" that has no official policy of murdering any of the three groups, the divides between them are still prevalent.
The fact of the matter is that you could erase all boundaries, and people would still behave in the same way. A Texan from Abeline or Midland would no more fit in with a Californian from San Francisco then than they do now, and that's within the same nation, never mind other nations.
so u're saying that with or without boundaries things will be the same..... then what the hell are boundaries still in place for?
by the way, a lot of countries are multi-racial n multi-cultured, and most of them are not having fights between each other every other week.
merged: 11-14-2005 ~ 12:35am
I don't think they are wrong to our own moral standards. It's just that there is no justification to their existance.
Other animals can do what they do but we don't have to follow right? Anyway, most animals form groups with their own species, not within their species.
Think of it as a "I won't kill you zone." Basically the borders exist so that we don't kill each other. We enforce those borders for the same reason. Killing each other takes alot more time and energy than it does to just build a wall and maintain it.
The justification would be to protect each other from others who are different and who think are better, or those who want to colonize. It has been that way and it will be that way for as long as human beings exist. Yes, it is our human nature, that in itself is reason enough. Who will defend you against those who are different--either in appearance, beliefs, etc.--and think they deserve to extend their power beyond you. What might be consider immoral are the means by which power and territory is obtained. But it's definitely in our nature to form groups and guard our territory, just as animals do. Individuals within species form groups to defend against others within the same species but that belong to a different community.
I don't believe that countries should meddle in others' affairs. I believe that the UN should supervise the actions of nations with consent of those being overlooked but no one nation should call all the shots. The possibility of one world order is very unlikely but you can bet it will be attempted. Because people are so different from each other around the world, it will fail. Not all of us can get along. Just look at my sig, that should tell you something about my feelings towards those who I, and many, deem inferior because of their twisted ideas.
Depends on which animals you're talking about. Chimpanzees form their own communities. They attack any lone chimp from another community, beating and biting him to death. They wage war on other communities for territory and resources.
Insects like ants wage war on their own species and other insects.
yea right, if that's the case why aren't countries mono-cultured or mono-racial?
since the boundaries are in place at the moment, why do terrorists still exist? they should not since 'the borders exist so that we don't kill each other'.
merged: 11-14-2005 ~ 07:55pm
I'm not talking about ppl controlling each other. Having a one world order does not mean that some ppl have to be inferior. They can co-exist just like many are in some countries. people from different countries have negative views of each other because of these countries-thing seperating them.
Take Japan and China for example. there are a lot of hostility because people from these countries as different from each other. If there had been not boundaries seperating them, and a war had broken out, the aftermath would not have been like it is now. It would have been viewed as a riot and there would be no accusations between ppl.
btw, i can't see ur sig. but if i guess correctly, i'm deem inferior because of my 'twisted ideas' right?
merged: 11-14-2005 ~ 07:59pm
yea, ok i can't disagree with this point, but i can see that what is said above shows that animals, and so do humans, are aggressive towards each other because of differences between them. Humans have enough differences naturally, so the difference of nationality is really unnecessary.
The differences of nationality may seem "unnecessary" but that does nothing to change the fact that those differences exist. It is a a severe oversimplification to say an abstract concept like 'nationality' or 'country' was invented. I think it is closer to the truth to say that the idea of 'country' evolved over many thousands of years, starting with our biological ancestors and their primitive societies. But honestly, the origin of nationality is besides the point because you seem to categorize many of the world's problems as consequences of nationalistic differentiation. That's just false at best and dangerous at the worst. Even within the same country, you have divisions based on geography, religion, politics and income just to name a few. I live on the north-east coast of the U.S. but have family in the south and many of our views differ. I say this to demonstrate that taking away the difference of nationality doesn't mean people will suddenly be peaceful towards everyone. Are you familiar with the concept of urban gang-warfare? Many times the differences are strictly geographic where one gang is from one part of the city and the other gang is from another part of the same city. Sometimes the element of ethnic heritage plays a factor but just as often it doesn't.
The more I think about it, the more confused I am as to what you are actually asking. Even if there were a single world-wide government, people would still differentiate into various groups and we would still have periods of violent conflict due to things like political unrest, economic depressions, religious issues etc. Just because we have the concept of nationality and country doesn't mean that we won't fight amongst our own. The conflict in Ireland is a good example. The battle lines there are not drawn strictly along national lines. The element of religous difference is just as important. Your example of China and Japan I find to be flawed simply because if it were true, then the idea of civil war would only be an idea and not a reality.
for your imformation,i'm trying to say that there is no need for countries and boundaries to be present .
CORRECTION : there would be no war if Japan and China and all other countries are not different countries. Japan started the war because it needed resources to support its economy. If they were not seperated, then China or some other could have shipped what Japan needed over and there will be no cause to fight. btw, if i remember correctly, japan were short on resources because the US stopped selling them.
I agree that there are differences between ppl even in the same country. its just that since it is so then the boundaries are useless in 'keeping differences seperated and prevent blablablah '.
In your gang-warfare example, why isn't the city seperated with more boundaries to keep ppl to themselves? i would say because its useless, like those in place between countries.
I also wonder what support that gang-warfare thing gives to you in trying to say that boundaries between countries are necessary. your example only shows how useless those boundaries are.
Also,
Are you? You sound like you have witnessed them lots of times and these fights break out every few days.
I subscribe to every word elessar007 wrote adding only that in a simple way to say it (not that it is simple) its not about border lines or religion or whatever... Its about the people. All the destructive nature described above is a result of mankind s own dumb way of sorting things out... and it wont be uniting the world in a big nation that will make it any better.
Border lines are only a sign of mankind s nature...
Human have differences is something obvious. But to bring up those differences to separate us and put us into some "boxes" named nations are something I don't feel like it.
Nations will always excist as long as there are humans who have different and/or similar ideals and ways of life.
er so you agree that national boundaries are useless?
merged: 11-14-2005 ~ 10:24pm
at last ! someone who actually agrees with me
merged: 11-14-2005 ~ 10:26pm
Not really. We just need to know that the ideas of those in charge doesnt need to be ours. If we continue to then there will continue to be nations around.
If we don't have leaders we will be a mindless rabble without a goal or cause. We are animals that live in herds, and herds need leaders otherwise it will scatter or accomplish nothing, or turn on itself. People always seek for guidance and leadership. Thus nations will be created. Just as animals have territories we have nations.
why not thus we need a leader? a central world government's a leader.........
thats impossible it will never happen so stop dreaming cause of the different nationalities not being racist or mean but its the truth do u think chinese can take white people as a leader or do u think white people can take a black as a leader even though u say ur not racist but thats only u u dont represent everyone
why not? i don't mind.
are the US people are all whites? and the UK?
my country is multi-cultured with a chinese as prime-minister and an indian as president, and we're doing fine.
BTW, I do not represent everyone, but that applies to you too. YOU being racist doesn't mean everyone is.
i never said i was racist i dont mind cause its eventually not my problem but think about it if people werent racist how come USA has a rule that u must be a pure american in order to be the president some of the countries only accept their own nationalities
There is no such thing as a world with no countries or nations. Anyplace that has existed it has degenerated into tribal warlords on one scale, or dictators on another (frequently being repeatedly overthrown in their little banana republics).
Present an option that actually makes sense as an alternative and I am pretty sure you could get people to listen to it, but unless you succeed at that, I would advise you not to get upset when people sit there poking holes in the theory. Are nations a pain in the butt? At times, sure. But given the alternatives, I'll stick with it.