Posted by Simeon (208.24.179.211) on May 07, 2002 at 11:23:36:

In Reply to: some responses posted by Vincent on May 06, 2002 at 17:27:05:

Vincent,

Regarding your comment of living next to Europeans (France & Germany)
versus living next to Africans (Tutsi and Hutu), don't forget that well
over 10 times as many Europeans were killed in wars between France and
Germany than Africans were killed in Rwanda. The only thing that has
prevented it since 1945 has been a recognition of European unity vs.
the old nationalistic competitions between France, Germany and England.
This line of reasoning actually undermines your belief that unity and
oneness are bad. If they can prevent wars in Europe (the most horrendous
wars the world ever saw in its history) then they must have some
usefulness, wouldn't you think? I'm sure you would prefer living in
Europe today when compared to the 1930s-40s, when your beliefs of
"national preservation at all costs" were the norm.

>> National sovereignty means that a nation has the right to withdraw
from any larger body, be it the United Nations or the European Union,
and determine its own course. You favor a world in which nations
can't do this, in which there is a global governmental level which
has final authority. <<

You favor a world in which nations can't do this either. Look at all
the hubbub over Iraq. They are just determining their own course,
creating weapons just like other countries such as the USA have done.
They should be left completely alone under a system of absolute
national sovereignty. The fact is, absolute national sovereignty is
already a dead idea - no nation has it anymore. The USA appears to
be the last country to recognize this, but it is already true.

>> Even if the system is very devolved, it is still
one-worldism and therefore hateful to those who support their
national states. I want to be governed by my own people, not by
bureaucrats from the Congo, or what have you. <<

Speaking of this, do states in the United States have the right to
withdraw from the Union? No, they don't. But why should Kansans or
Coloradoans be governed by Washington, DC? Has the United States
suffered by being United? Would it be more advanced if every state had
full national sovereignty? Or would it have become a backwater of
warring former colonies, ripe for reconquest by European powers? Unity
is strength, no matter how you slice it. It can't be a forced unity,
like the Soviets tried to achieve - but real unity is always a force
for advancement, development, and strength. Just as "one nation"-ism
is not hateful to those who support Minnesota or Nevada or Vermont,
"one-worldism" isn't hateful to those who support France or Brazil or
Zimbabwe. In fact, it is the means by which they will achieve true
civilization.

>> Baha'i propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding, we are not one
people--God forbid that we should ever become one. <<

Yes, I'm sure endless wars and civil strife are more in line with what
God wants than a people united. ;-)

We're already one people, we just haven't fully accepted it. The
wars of the 20th century are a testament to our resistance to the
idea of our own oneness. Yet, from each conflict we emerge closer
to one another and more interdependent than ever before. Despite
your neo-apartheid stance, unity is inevitable. It's only a matter
of how many more people have to be killed before we finally figure
that out.

Peace,
Simeon

this topic is closed - post at bahai-library.com/forum