NationStates Jolt Archive

The question is for noting how countries are no longer what defines people as having a conflict with each other. The concepts of a new Kurdistan, a unified Korea, how the big 6 uses propaganda to insist and encourage conflict for profits (there might be a forum on this it isn't recognized who the big 6 are), and the ideas of self-determination initiated in WW1 and now in effect for a new Tibetan state are a few theatres where this can be shown.

This is not necessarily stating corporations or culture wield the importance and development of conflict, but it does intend to wake up those who haven't realized yet to consider how internal politics are just another piece of bureaucratic garbage that can be manipulated for delaying or accelerating lobbyists agenda.

The question is for noting how countries are no longer what defines people as having a conflict with each other. The concepts of a new Kurdistan, a unified Korea, how the big 6 uses propaganda to insist and encourage conflict for profits (there might be a forum on this it isn't recognized who the big 6 are), and the ideas of self-determination initiated in WW1 and now in effect for a new Tibetan state are a few theatres where this can be shown.

This is not necessarily stating corporations or culture wield the importance and development of conflict, but it does intend to wake up those who haven't realized yet to consider how internal politics are just another piece of bureaucratic garbage that can be manipulated for delaying or accelerating lobbyists agenda.
Huh? I found this confusing in the extreme. What are you trying to say???

Huh? I found this confusing in the extreme. What are you trying to say???
People are no longer defined by the country in which they happen to reside, but by culture, religion, political philiosophy, and worldview. Immigration speeds this process, as does the notion that the exchange of ideas is instantaneous through the internet, making geography irrelevant. Multinational corporations carry a lot of clout _across_ countries, further minimising the importance of a country as a unit-of-people.

That's his argument, I think! Don't know that I'm with it, but that's what is said, I think.

I can't believe that today sovereignty is under constant attack. It only caused chaos in the 20th century because everything caused chaos at one time. Leave sovereignty alone. Stop the EU!

Nationalism is one of the worst ideologies devised by man, not necessarily because of what it encourages, but because of what it does not discourage. Nationalism states that it is better to be governed by a tyrannical countryman, than a liberating foreigner, and implies that is perfectly acceptable for foreign states to persecute their own people 'because that is how those backwards ethnics deal with their problems'.

Nationalism is propagated via a lie, the Lie of Nations, that a group of peoples can be grouped together to form a cohesive unit known as a nation, that 'our' nation is civilised, and that the nations across the contrived boundary are barbaric, when in reality the people are identical, and it is the ruling elite that insists on emphasising the differences. To this end they invented the idea of National Sovereignty, and encourage the ignorant of society to think that by jingoistically defending their sovereignty, they are defending their rights. When in fact all they are defending is the ruling elite's right to oppress the people.

Nationalism is one of the worst ideologies devised by man, not necessarily because of what it encourages, but because of what it does not discourage. Nationalism states that it is better to be governed by a tyrannical countryman, than a liberating foreigner, and implies that is perfectly acceptable for foreign states to persecute their own people 'because that is how those backwards ethnics deal with their problems'.

Nationalism is propagated via a lie, the Lie of Nations, that a group of peoples can be grouped together to form a cohesive unit known as a nation, that 'our' nation is civilised, and that the nations across the contrived boundary are barbaric, when in reality the people are identical, and it is the ruling elite that insists on emphasising the differences. To this end they invented the idea of National Sovereignty, and encourage the ignorant of society to think that by jingoistically defending their sovereignty, they are defending their rights. When in fact all they are defending is the ruling elite's right to oppress the people.

...Uh... I don't think anyone except you was thinking of Nationalism, but thank you for introducing the topic, guess...

The idea of 'nation states' we know today grew out of the idea that people could no longer be transfered from one ruler to another - they had a shared culture, identity, and broad outlook; to be sure, there were doubtless greater differences _within_ these groups than _between_ them based on class, political power etc. but nonetheless, taken as subgroups, people felt they had more in common with their countrymen than foreigners.

In a world with greater cross-border agencies - corporations, religions, politics - and the means for ordinary people to talk to and identify with 'foreigners' through phones, the internet etc., it could be that the idea of a _nation_ as a person's primary grouping is no longer tenable in the long term. We all group ourselves with those we can identify with, and if these groups no longer arise mostly from our own countries... Well, mibbe it's the beginning of the end of the importance of 'countries' as a defining point of someone's identity, all things being equal.