|
|
|
|
|
by prewett
24 days ago
|
|
Have you spent any serious time with other cultures? Yes, we all have the same colored blood and excrement, and we have a lot of similarities. Yet at the same time, we are very different. England's traditional dignity culture (the virtuous man can overlook slights) is very different than Africa's honor culture (honor is zero-sum, and you must fight to maintain it), for instance. Japanese values and American values are frequently opposite (Japan values group membership, America values individuality; Japan honors someone by setting them apart, America honors someone by engaging with them.) In an ideal world we could celebrate each other's differences. But trying to get rid of conflict by getting rid of national borders is naive. Why are the borders where they are? Generally because those are ethno-cultural boundaries. Nations that encompass multiple ethno-cultural groups tend to be somewhat unstable: for instance, Yugoslavia broke up violently, and Iraq has conflict between the Kurds and the rest. This is not a support of nationalism (although I encourage patriotism, which is different), but "countries are [nothing] more than a shared historical hallucination" is just incorrect. |
|
The US has been remarkably stable for a nation that encompasses multiple ethno-cultural groups. It may not continue to be so, but historically it has been a counterexample.