synergy?

[robinbloke]

The euro seems to be staying afloat, the EU may be slowly grinding itself towards a unified (beaucractic) way of thinking.
Will it ever abandon the underlying countries? Could it abandon the underlying countries and become an entirely homogeneous unit of people who go, live and work whereever they want within the area?
Is this what you want? They want?
Is your country and place of birth important to you?
Can people ever abandon old hatreds and prejudices and just be people?
Can religion, government and law ever be unified?
Do we want it to be? Or does mankind need it's differences to encourage expression in different ways, create ideals and ideas through opposing views?
Or is the human race just determined to have as many differences as possible so we have excuses to kill each other?

Comments

[sesquipedality.livejournal.com]

Wales has been unified with England for nearly a thousand years.

They're still pissed off about it.

Enough said.

[sherbetsaucers.livejournal.com]

England itself wasn't always one country. Kind of good to remember that to.

Dragging of soapbox

[borusa.livejournal.com]

Sorry about this...

But fundamentally, I believe the answer is yes.

I'd like to see a world united under one government in a single nation. A nation that values its differences and prizes its regional heritage whilst recognising that we _are_ all one people. Where it doesn't matter what your skin colour, gender, sexual orientation or religion is. Where people can be genuinely free to believe what they want to believe without fear of repression or violence.

I don't expect it soon. In fact, I will never live to see it. And it may _never_ happen in the idealistic way I see it.

But every step in that direction is a good step. Every step that brings us closer can only make things better.

Sovereignty has only brought war. Lets try unity.

Re: Dragging of soapbox

[sesquipedality.livejournal.com]

I would *love* to see this. I wish the EC was much much more than an elaborate free trade zone.

I'm too much of a cynic to believe that people will ever set aside their national prejudices and let it happen though. And, although I think it's a good thing, it might be that there is a natural "optimum size" for a government. Maybe once it gets too big it can no longer represent everyone in any sensible sense. Would be nice to try though.

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

Nationalism is just the fear of others, and the transference of undesired elements of the human experience onto those we deem others. Heidegger: 'when we define someone as 'other' we sever any connection we have to them.' or something. People always draw their own circle of comfort as tightly as deems their purpose. Cf. football matches. When Man Utd play Liverpool, one side boos Owen, one side boos Beckham. When it comes to a national match, all previous 'sides' cheer for both. By creating undesirable elemnts in others, we defer our own poor qualities, and elevate ourselves. Cf. Slavery guilt and Sins of the Fathers. Before the White man came to Africa, hundreds of tribes took slaves from other tribes; in fact, most of the slaves taken to the West Indies were from African slave owners. But these facts are lost to hysteria, and a desire to categorise - so Slavery becomes White Opression. It's a neat line that can be drawn through segments of humanity to make others seem more worthy. Cf. Extreme feminism, and I'm talking about things like Dworkin and SCUM here; all men are potential rapists, and the flip side of that being that women aren't. An elevation of oneself by one's own definitions.
Personally, I'm happy being a mongrel, consisted of a history of rape, prostitution, drunken fumblings, and I'd like to hope some love in there, too. Where we've come from isn't important, it only serves to isolate those who haven't shared our experiences, but where we're going is.

That said, personal experiences rather than cultural ones can serve to bring people together through passions that they share.