While I understand the attraction, I have never been a fan of nationalism or sovereign states for that matter. I get also understand why they exist as they do, but attaching oneself to some imaginary lines on a map, seems precarious. And as centralised states go, history gives a very clear indication on what happens to all of them.
They all fail.
The reason they fail might seem very diverse, but it is probably not the case. Essentially, they all fail because they take their position for granted, they become entitled, and they believe themselves too big to fail, so they overreach with their powers, become corrupt, and eventually collapse under their own hubris. And one of the main reasons they end up doing this, is because as they grow in power, they start to treat "non-citizens" as second class, or worse. And eventually, this breaks down the system, creating factions and enemies, that organise themselves and rebel.
It is also interesting because every nation on earth, is made of immigrants. The only thing that is different among them is the timeline of when the migrations happened. For instance, the Australian Aboriginals who have been in Australia for around 50,000 years, very likely originated from Southeast Asia, migrating to Australia themselves. The Native Americans likely originated from Asia also, walking across between Russia and the US where they used to meet in Alaska.
Why does the timing matter so much in terms of migration? The US was formed through mass migration from Europe and mass slavery from Africa and Asia for a few hundred years until relatively recently. Why is 400 years ago different than if it happened 12,000 years ago? Perhaps it is not, but it is only visible as the same in hindsight - when there are enough years and generations under the belt.
However, we don't have that kind of time, which is why the nations we have seem like they have been there for a long time, and it is justified that we should identify ourselves with them, even if there are quite a few countries that have been formed within living memory, like Pakistan, Israel, or the Republic of Italy.
Yet still, migration always causes problems, because there are going to be encroachments on space that one group believes is theirs, and changes in cultures where many people will be affected in numerous ways. We don't like change, which also means we don't like different. Academia might argue against this, but reality of human nature tells a more accurate story. If we feel that "our group" is being replaced, we probably get resentful. I find this silly in many respects, due to to the arbitrary traits of what makes a group ours.
A group of people are a group based on the colour of skin, flavour of religion, sexual orientation or a million other classifiers. However, are these broad-brush identifiers good buckets to actually identify with? Do we really want to identify ourselves as similar to everyone else in our skin colour group? Are we the same kinds of people as everyone who is heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or one of the other letters or symbols?
Do you define yourself this way?
What can be pretty much guaranteed however, is that the nations of today are unlikely to be the same in a few hundred years from now. Save us annihilating ourselves or experiencing an extinction event like a large asteroid hitting earth before this, the lines on the maps will change and likely, so will the entire governance structure we know today. Many believe that a fight for democracy is the way to go, but democracy is not actually a very good system, is it? It might be "the best" out of the accepted few right now, but it is unlikely to hold up for very long as we learn more, and AI describes multiple better systems we are incapable of comprehending yet.
And, I think that this is what we are fighting for at the moment. Yes, in a practical sense it seems to be over land, or resources, or some kind of history of "ownership" because of some migration patterns of humans at some time in the past - but at the core it is more about what system is the best to adhere to. There are several models in the world today, from the more liberal, to dictatorships and strict religious code. But, none of them work well enough that they will survive unchanged.
I believe that most average people would prefer a more liberal structure, where there are civil liberties and freedoms, with some kind of structure to keep innovation and opportunity flowing. That is not any of the centralised governments of today though, as while some are more liberal than others, they are all corrupt and abusive with their powers to some degree.
None of them will last.
Which is interesting to consider, when enumerating how much time and effort and energy is put into fighting for and against the people in these very broken systems. Especially since none of those people can fix the system, because they are products of it, and benefit from it. We want a better system, but we are depending on the wrong people to deliver it. It is liking needing a car engine repaired, and taking it to the dentist - they don't have the right knowledge, skills, or tools.
Though, maybe it is better than having a mechanic do a root canal.
Anyway, this is just a bit of a rambling reflection on how we get attached to arbitrary and transient conditions, as if they are important and are not going to ever change. As the Buddha said,
Attachment is the root of all suffering.
Maybe to be human is to get attached to some things, which if true then raises the question:
What are we willing to suffer for?
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
