A Question of Identity - State or Self?
The Mandarin word 國家 sets up the question nicely. "The nation before the home", without the nation, there is no home. Without a home, there is no self. Does this necessarily hold today? This is not a question of statehood (e.g. Palestine, the Kurds) but a question that concerns the individual more. How important is the state to you?
We mostly live in nice, defined compartments called nations. Most of us have a nationality - a place we call 'home'. We have a passport. Each nation is governed by a government, which rules the state, most of the time, on behalf of the population. So, there are about 200 such nice little compartments scattered around Earth. And we have a neat organisation that brings all these compartments together - the United Nations.
Differences between people living in each compartment is accidental. A series of chain-reactions set in motion during the course of human civilisation. It was the geographical location that probably allowed Europe to prosper technologically during the 2nd millennium, at the expense of older civilisations in the Middle East and Asia, to become the dominant power in the early 20th century (For details, refer to Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel"). I could postulate that there has been a westward shift in global dominance over time. The Mesopotamians started it all, then it shifted to the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, then the European colonialists, the American superpower. Probably it's shifting to East Asia as we speak, towards India.. and finally back a full circle to the Middle East. This westward shift was not deliberate. It was accidental, a little nudge in 1 direction sufficed to bring forth later events.
Why had rice become the staple of south asians? And not the Americans? Again, biological factors. Rice as a plant require certain growing conditions that is only met on the Asian continent, plus the fact that wild relatives of rice probably existed in Asia only. Continuous land from the equator northwards.. along Indochina, South China, ensured that there is a continuous belt of rainforest vegetation northwards, receiving plenty of rain. Comparatively, america is disrupted by the huge Gulf of Mexico, and Europe by the Meditteranean Sea. To cross from South America into North America, you needed to cross drier landmass, i.e. Mohave Desert, the Texan plains.. similar situation in Europe from North Africa. The meditteranean scrubby vegetation wouldn't work for the rice plants.
Hence, our differences stem from past events, that drive current patterns - our culture, our language... are all products of early events. So.. are humans in different compartments that different?
Yes, you can argue that we are, because of cultural differences, separated by thousands of years of history. Yet, we are similar, for the fact that we can sit in the UN HQ in New York and communicate (with the help of interpreters). I'm not going to dwell on biological jargon (definition of a species blah blah); so we are more similar than we think.
If that's so, then compartmentalisation was just a way of managing large groups of people, grouped together with more similar histories. However, the imposition of an idea of "state-ness" is common. The Great American Dream, emphasising the America as a nation. We have our own national emblems, be it flag, coat of arms, or even flower and animal. They are important, no doubt, to build cohesion within the compartment. In times of trouble, e.g. political coup, natural disaster, these very symbols are unifying forces that draw people of the nation together. But, when these disturbances are removed, the question of nation > self fades? When we wait for the last moment, do most of us sense the presence of the state, or our family? Is the notion of state too well-defined?
We are global citizens. It's unlikely that any sizeable population remains isolated from any form of foreign contact. If that is so, what does this spell for human evolution? Well, it is not likely that other humanoid forms are going to diverge from our line, because no one is going to be isolated enough for that to happen. Instead, as various authors have thought of, humans will go extinct by their own undoing, not anytime soon, we still have a few million years to go (on average, a species survives for 10 million years). Then, what next? Postulation that rats will surive whatever catacylsm we subject ourselves. Rats are resilient creatures - they have been there hand in hand with humans, witnessing our rise and fall. And the rats will probably nibble away our civilisations, and start to flourish, free from human pressure. Similar to the post-Cretaceous extinction of dinosaurs. Who knows, there may be an intelligent rat-form that will one day conduct archaeological digs, and find remains of human civilisation. That will be a grand day - similar to when we discover dinosaurs, mammoths, and Cambrian fauna.
Not quite sure if all that made good sense. Without any planning, i admit it looks like a poorly constructed entry, It's just a thought.
The Mandarin word 國家 sets up the question nicely. "The nation before the home", without the nation, there is no home. Without a home, there is no self. Does this necessarily hold today? This is not a question of statehood (e.g. Palestine, the Kurds) but a question that concerns the individual more. How important is the state to you?
We mostly live in nice, defined compartments called nations. Most of us have a nationality - a place we call 'home'. We have a passport. Each nation is governed by a government, which rules the state, most of the time, on behalf of the population. So, there are about 200 such nice little compartments scattered around Earth. And we have a neat organisation that brings all these compartments together - the United Nations.
Differences between people living in each compartment is accidental. A series of chain-reactions set in motion during the course of human civilisation. It was the geographical location that probably allowed Europe to prosper technologically during the 2nd millennium, at the expense of older civilisations in the Middle East and Asia, to become the dominant power in the early 20th century (For details, refer to Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel"). I could postulate that there has been a westward shift in global dominance over time. The Mesopotamians started it all, then it shifted to the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, then the European colonialists, the American superpower. Probably it's shifting to East Asia as we speak, towards India.. and finally back a full circle to the Middle East. This westward shift was not deliberate. It was accidental, a little nudge in 1 direction sufficed to bring forth later events.
Why had rice become the staple of south asians? And not the Americans? Again, biological factors. Rice as a plant require certain growing conditions that is only met on the Asian continent, plus the fact that wild relatives of rice probably existed in Asia only. Continuous land from the equator northwards.. along Indochina, South China, ensured that there is a continuous belt of rainforest vegetation northwards, receiving plenty of rain. Comparatively, america is disrupted by the huge Gulf of Mexico, and Europe by the Meditteranean Sea. To cross from South America into North America, you needed to cross drier landmass, i.e. Mohave Desert, the Texan plains.. similar situation in Europe from North Africa. The meditteranean scrubby vegetation wouldn't work for the rice plants.
Hence, our differences stem from past events, that drive current patterns - our culture, our language... are all products of early events. So.. are humans in different compartments that different?
Yes, you can argue that we are, because of cultural differences, separated by thousands of years of history. Yet, we are similar, for the fact that we can sit in the UN HQ in New York and communicate (with the help of interpreters). I'm not going to dwell on biological jargon (definition of a species blah blah); so we are more similar than we think.
If that's so, then compartmentalisation was just a way of managing large groups of people, grouped together with more similar histories. However, the imposition of an idea of "state-ness" is common. The Great American Dream, emphasising the America as a nation. We have our own national emblems, be it flag, coat of arms, or even flower and animal. They are important, no doubt, to build cohesion within the compartment. In times of trouble, e.g. political coup, natural disaster, these very symbols are unifying forces that draw people of the nation together. But, when these disturbances are removed, the question of nation > self fades? When we wait for the last moment, do most of us sense the presence of the state, or our family? Is the notion of state too well-defined?
We are global citizens. It's unlikely that any sizeable population remains isolated from any form of foreign contact. If that is so, what does this spell for human evolution? Well, it is not likely that other humanoid forms are going to diverge from our line, because no one is going to be isolated enough for that to happen. Instead, as various authors have thought of, humans will go extinct by their own undoing, not anytime soon, we still have a few million years to go (on average, a species survives for 10 million years). Then, what next? Postulation that rats will surive whatever catacylsm we subject ourselves. Rats are resilient creatures - they have been there hand in hand with humans, witnessing our rise and fall. And the rats will probably nibble away our civilisations, and start to flourish, free from human pressure. Similar to the post-Cretaceous extinction of dinosaurs. Who knows, there may be an intelligent rat-form that will one day conduct archaeological digs, and find remains of human civilisation. That will be a grand day - similar to when we discover dinosaurs, mammoths, and Cambrian fauna.
Not quite sure if all that made good sense. Without any planning, i admit it looks like a poorly constructed entry, It's just a thought.
posted by Monty Elm at 7:34 pm
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home