Hi Wim,
Thanks for the stimulating post. For the time being, I'd like to comment on
just one part. You say:
>
> ...nations based on ethnic or religious majorities are not at the
> frontier of social progress. I'd say that even nations 'built around a
> shared intellectual framework' aren't any more, because the type of
> intellectual framework that allows for us (the intellectual elite,
deserving
> citizenship) versus them (the backward, not deserving citizenship)
> distinctions are not at the frontier of intellectual progress any more.
> Major advances in social progress are visible in areas, like Western
Europe,
> where ethnic and cultural differences are becoming less important and
where
> nations are consequently relinquishing sovereignty in favor of
> supra-national entities (the European Union, NATO) that are in turn
> gradually including more (also relatively 'backward') nations.
>
I agree with you. I've been mulling on what represents a proper basis for
the boundaries of nations, and I can't do better than simply come up with
geographical limits (perhaps because Britain is an island?). But it seems
that the root of the problem is actually an 'us/them' attitude. As soon as
you have peoples sharing an area who divide themselves up according to
social or biological level criteria, then you are going to have problems. So
what is needed is the 'transformational praxis' - to use John B's
expression - which will result in a change of heart by the participants, so
that the 'other side' are seen as fellow human beings and neighbours, not
'others'. In the meantime, a more or less productive ceasefire is the best
that can be hoped for.
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:14 BST