[BBC News] Tour of thanks for Iraq soldiers

[Sebrof]

I reckon all people are tribal.

At the top of the tree are those who consider themselves citizens of the universe.

 

If we can get everybody to think like them, it would be much harder to start wars.

 

I think you are right. We are all tribal, we are all social animals who depend on each other and recognise that we have far more to gain by cooperating with each other than with fighting each other.

 

It is not about becoming citizens of the universe. Forget the idea of citizen. For starters get rid of the State and all other foreign states which wage these wars. It isn't the people who began these conflicts. You only need to look at Britain's awful foreign policy to see that it isn't the populace who are driving it but a small group of politicians.

 

 

Today I had an Everest salesman round to discuss double-glazing. After half an hour I had to sling him out because he wouldn't discuss the issue, just kept prattling on in accordance with the Everest script.

 

You are rather similar, LDV. You keep returning to script. Man is a social animal, like the dog. He needs to feel part of a tribe, and when he doesn't, all hell breaks loose. This is the nature of the beast. You can't change him; you can't eradicate the need to feel part of a group. All you can do is make him feel part of a larger group. So forget your "Forget the idea of citizen." It ain't going to happen.

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You are rather similar, LDV. You keep returning to script. Man is a social animal, like the dog. He needs to feel part of a tribe, and when he doesn't, all hell breaks loose. This is the nature of the beast. You can't change him; you can't eradicate the need to feel part of a group. All you can do is make him feel part of a larger group. So forget your "Forget the idea of citizen." It ain't going to happen.

 

S

 

What do you mean by script? If you mean I have not come up with these ideas independently then you are completely right but nor are those based on ideas of citizenship.

I meant forgetting about the idea of citizenship, which is related to nationality and the state. Man does not need citizenship to feel part of a group, it is simply a modern manifestation of such an idea, but citizenship does not appear to me to be anything like an ideal group, certainly not if it is based on nationality. I am interested in those in my locale and of the same position in life as me, not in those who speak the same language and obey the same state. Do you know what I mean?

[Freggyragh]

You are rather similar, LDV. You keep returning to script. Man is a social animal, like the dog. He needs to feel part of a tribe, and when he doesn't, all hell breaks loose. This is the nature of the beast. You can't change him; you can't eradicate the need to feel part of a group. All you can do is make him feel part of a larger group. So forget your "Forget the idea of citizen." It ain't going to happen.

 

S

 

What do you mean by script? If you mean I have not come up with these ideas independently then you are completely right but nor are those based on ideas of citizenship.

I meant forgetting about the idea of citizenship, which is related to nationality and the state. Man does not need citizenship to feel part of a group, it is simply a modern manifestation of such an idea, but citizenship does not appear to me to be anything like an ideal group, certainly not if it is based on nationality. I am interested in those in my locale and of the same position in life as me, not in those who speak the same language and obey the same state. Do you know what I mean?

Nope.

[Sebrof]

I am interested in those in my locale and of the same position in life as me, not in those who speak the same language and obey the same state. Do you know what I mean?

 

I think I know what you mean, but I don't understand how you, of all people, got to that position. I had thought that you might have had a rather wider idea of who your fellow man is. People who tend to think only in terms of those close by are much more likely to exhibit xenophobic tendencies, and to support wars.

 

By the way, the word "citizen" is capable of a much wider interpretation that you have chosen to give it. Think of the word in relation to the connected word "civilised". At base, it's about recognising our inter-dependence.

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I am interested in those in my locale and of the same position in life as me, not in those who speak the same language and obey the same state. Do you know what I mean?

 

I think I know what you mean, but I don't understand how you, of all people, got to that position. I had thought that you might have had a rather wider idea of who your fellow man is. People who tend to think only in terms of those close by are much more likely to exhibit xenophobic tendencies, and to support wars.

 

By the way, the word "citizen" is capable of a much wider interpretation that you have chosen to give it. Think of the word in relation to the connected word "civilised". At base, it's about recognising our inter-dependence.

 

S

 

I see what you mean and can see where I am almost making contradictions. What I am trying to say, maybe badly, is that I think smaller groups that exist because people find common interests, help each, or share common goals are far more important in society and relevant to the recognition of man being a social being than the role of being a citizen of a state. You are right, it didn't make sense to talk about the locale, it was a bad choice of word when I was trying to refer more to the groups in a community.

 

The idea of being of citizen is dependent on the idea of being part of a nation and having duties to that nation that if met allow the person to participate in the politics of that community. I don't like this idea, because as I have said before, the people of a nation cannot all share the same interests and goals.

 

You mention civilised but are you mixing citizen up with civilian?

[Sebrof]

You mention civilised but are you mixing citizen up with civilian?

 

Hardly. I am using citizen in the sense of a member of society, rather than an outcast or an enemy, and civilised behaviour is that which recognises the obligations that members of society (citizens) bear to each other.

 

A citizen of the universe sees himself as belonging to a society that embraces everybody - "All men are my brothers".

 

This view of the world is the antithesis of tribalism and petty nationalism, and since tribalism and petty nationalism are the tools used by scoundrels to start wars, they are a BAD THING.

 

In my view, of course.

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You mention civilised but are you mixing citizen up with civilian?

 

Hardly. I am using citizen in the sense of a member of society, rather than an outcast or an enemy, and civilised behaviour is that which recognises the obligations that members of society (citizens) bear to each other.

 

A citizen of the universe sees himself as belonging to a society that embraces everybody - "All men are my brothers".

 

This view of the world is the antithesis of tribalism and petty nationalism, and since tribalism and petty nationalism are the tools used by scoundrels to start wars, they are a BAD THING.

 

In my view, of course.

 

S

 

But I have never come across a definition of citizen as being just a member of society. From my understanding, you don't need to be a member of society to be a citizen. To be a citizen of the universe would seem contradictory with the definition of citizen.

 

But I do agree with what you say about being civilised. I don't know exactly which obligations you believe should be recognised, but I imagine we share them or share most of them, unelss they are related to the current political system.

[rallybug]

You are quite right about tribalism, community, clans, etc. But nationalism and patriotism are far more recent. Nationalism hasn't been around that long, arguably it can be said to have began around the end of the 18th century. It is tied to the development of the types of state that we have today. Prior to nationalism peoples ties were to their community and local area and not to a nation. I think patriotism and nationalism are very distasteful because they give the impression of a commonality of interest shared by all people who speak the same language or have close cultural similarities, this completely overlooks the commonality of workers and the oppressed across all nations.

 

I would argue about the 18th century start point - 'Cry God for Harry, England and St George', even if never said by Henry V in 1415, would appear to have been an understanding of patriotism by Shakespeare in his play of around 1600. Nationalism would appear to be a more recent creation, I agree, and it is only in recent times that the two have been confused or re-aligned by certain sections of society. I would imagine that patriotism comes originally from feudalism - as the feudal state was overtaken by the nation state, people's allegiance moved from their local lord or tribe to a larger notion of 'tribe'.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I would argue about the 18th century start point - 'Cry God for Harry, England and St George', even if never said by Henry V in 1415, would appear to have been an understanding of patriotism by Shakespeare in his play of around 1600. Nationalism would appear to be a more recent creation, I agree, and it is only in recent times that the two have been confused or re-aligned by certain sections of society. I would imagine that patriotism comes originally from feudalism - as the feudal state was overtaken by the nation state, people's allegiance moved from their local lord or tribe to a larger notion of 'tribe'.

 

Well nationalism is more related to a political goal, whereas patriotism is not.

 

I think you are right, it is nationalism which is the modern.