Europe

[Kagemusha]

How do you link grouping to the necessity of nationalism? If there were no nations (but one), you'd end up with various forms of regionalism; but you wouldn't have wars otherwise local military/militias was/were formed. For this to happen, you'd need a serious cultural split.

There's a vast difference between saying world peace can be achieved tomorrow by signing a dozen of documents today, and that saying it is at all possible.

Why is a huge country like the USA firmly united, while a small country like Serbia recently split in two? It shows us that size does not matter for unity; identity on the other hand, does. Identities change as history goes; they are as fragile as words drawn in the sand at a beach.

US waged a terrible civil war that prevented it from splitting in two. The federalist argument seems to continuosly be that together we are stronger. Well if the target is to create as large federal state as possible. Why dont we all just apply to become states of the United States, which is a democratic federal state? Or is there some rational behind that idea, like that the US is too far, which smells like regionalism, or in other words nationalism.

[Beskar]

It is not regionalism, it is called geography. You unite the neighbours then spread outwards. So if it is started at several points around the world with the same aim. It spreads out until they reach each other geography wise then join together then, otherwise it comes too awkward and complicated and serve better as individual nations in association.

Like to mention that Meneldil has made some very good points, Tribesman, LittleGrizzley, Viking and others.

As a statement, I would like to mention that nationalism in its current form has only existed for 200 or so years, in the majority, with advancements such as the railway systems. There is a famous quote in regards to the formation of Italy, which would be applied to a creation of a European Federation. "We have made Italy, now to make Italians". I personally see humanity as a whole, so nationalism means nothing to me, it seems like an excuse to cause conflict and wars between those wanting more power. The best way is to destroy the divides and create a whole. Once that whole is created, people will look back in history into the past and think "Wow, I am glad we escaped those dark ages, remember when people died over scraps of lands causing the deaths of billions because people born on one scrap are better than those born on that scrap?"

[Kagemusha]

It is not regionalism, it is called geography. You unite the neighbours then spread outwards. So if it is started at several points around the world with the same aim. It spreads out until they reach each other geography wise then join together then, otherwise it comes too awkward and complicated and serve better as individual nations in association.

Like to mention that Meneldil has made some very good points, Tribesman, LittleGrizzley, Viking and others.

As a statement, I would like to mention that nationalism in its current form has only existed for 200 or so years, in the majority, with advancements such as the railway systems. There is a famous quote in regards to the formation of Italy, which would be applied to a creation of a European Federation. "We have made Italy, now to make Italians". I personally see humanity as a whole, so nationalism means nothing to me, it seems like an excuse to cause conflict and wars between those wanting more power. The best way is to destroy the divides and create a whole. Once that whole is created, people will look back in history into the past and think "Wow, I am glad we escaped those dark ages, remember when people died over scraps of lands causing the deaths of billions because people born on one scrap are better than those born on that scrap?"

But didnt you in your earlier reply promote a goal that the world should be united under one rule? In the era of Globalism the distance to communicate between for example where i am and Spain or US is pretty much the same. Also i dont see much of a difference in the culture of Europe and US these days. In matter of fact some parts of Southern and Eastern European cultures feel more distant then the life style of US. So i in the end i see your explanation as pretty weak argument.

About Nationalism. Yes it is true. People have associated themselves as nationalities for only couple hundred years. But what they did before that was that in matter of fact they associated themselves in even smaller circles, like regions,tribes, cities, towns or villages. So in matter of fact they were more or less hostile to other people even closer then during national states.

[Beskar]

Also i dont see much of a difference in the culture of Europe and US these days. In matter of fact some parts of Southern and Eastern European cultures feel more distant then the life style of US. So i in the end i see your explanation as pretty weak argument.

Please realise, I am not advocating this for tomorrow (literally) and advocating it more like over the next decade or possibly longer or needed. You can't just jump into bed with it all, it happens in stages.

[Tribesman]

Nowadays there is scriptwriting of calibre. I suggest we try some.

Come on, if I really wanted to take the piss out of the detatchment from reality I would have gone with the Dutchman(and no Frag that song ain't directed your way this time)

[Viking]

US waged a terrible civil war that prevented it from splitting in two.

Yes, but I am of the understanding that there's a lot less chance of another civil war happening in the USA any time soon. At the same time, I do not believe that there is something to be "overcome" in order to achieve world peace. Rather, I think of it as something that is a very real possibility, but not something that humanity will necessarily end up with; and even if it does, it would by no means have to stay that way.

The federalist argument seems to continuosly be that together we are stronger. Well if the target is to create as large federal state as possible. Why dont we all just apply to become states of the United States, which is a democratic federal state? Or is there some rational behind that idea, like that the US is too far, which smells like regionalism, or in other words nationalism.

The previous paragraph should have made my current views a bit clearer, but I still want to specify that my personal views are not pro EU, or pro some whatever great federation. What matters to me, is individualism, and that a state should have as little control over its citizens as possible. This is a question I ponder alot over; it is hard to unite theory and reality..
Naturally, such a view would mean I oppose nationalism, warfare etc. It wouldn't necessarily mean that I am wishing the world should become one giant state, of some kind, ASAP; though of course, if this happened all voluntarily, and that the culture of the world was pretty much all the same in every country; the chances of war would near zero.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Ahem.

I'm not a fan of spin-off shows. Only Frasier worked, IMO.

The re-runs of the Tribesy and Fragony Show are familiar wallpaper to our daily Org lives. But that's no reason to pilot the even less amusing Tribesman and Furunculus Go Large. The comedic formula of "nitipick, derision, nitpick, derision" wasn't even funny in the Thirties.

Nowadays there is scriptwriting of calibre. I suggest we try some.

Thank you kindly.