Sep 9, 2006 3:25:00 PM cite

Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva: People believe their family. When their child is born, it believes its mother, because the mother is the person it can trust, and when it feel itself worse it goes to her and she trusts it. You know, it believes this because when it is very small it has no own experience. It cannot use its brain, its experience. But today children grow up, grow up from family. They open door from their house and go to look the world. Today they study a great deal, they see a lot and reach the age when they are responsable for themselves. They can use all experience they have in life. You know all people on the earth are like a child. And now we are growing up, we are "growing up" civilisation. We must go and open the door of our small house, open and look our world inside. I told and many people told our earth is so small and we are responsable for what we are doing this earth. It´s connected, of course, it is important to your own home but you must think to help your own country, your own community, our own home to have a better life. But you must think it´s time to think globally. You must now, today, think about all persons, about all people. Without doing that we cannot overlive, we have no future. It´s time to grow up for people.

by Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva

Sep 9, 2006 3:25:00 PM cite

Abbas Beydoun: It is clear that we always tend more to the nationality than the humanity, because the humanity have not been achieved yet. Humanity is still just promise and plan, but nationality exists somehow in the history, battles and common feelings particularly the hate between different people. The important thing to be said is that the nationality can be considered to be legend, which means that the people will believe in false thing. I think that the humanity is the correct thing in contrary to the nationality, but maybe we make also legend of the humanity if we think so. I am always afraid of the big dreams and I do not like to create big fantasm from small ones.

by Abbas Beydoun

Sep 9, 2006 3:25:00 PM cite

Alvaro Restrepo: I think, it has to do a lot with the fact, that we do not regard ourselves as citizens of the world, as citizens belonging to the same human race. One concept, in my opinion, should be immediately eradicated from the face of the Earth: the concept "fatherland". Powerful and negative world leaders use this term very often. Many crimes have been committed in the name of fatherland. This country, where we all gather today, knows too well the horrors of having defended nationalism, of having defended patriotism. This was a country, whose government used the term "fatherland" in order to control and manipulate its own people. Now we are allies, once the most powerful government has united us, the government that misused the concept "fatherland" in a most horrible way. I think, in order to eliminate nationalist ideas and a very restricted way of thinking, we should talk more about the Nature, that is a mother for all of us.

by Alvaro Restrepo

Sep 9, 2006 3:25:00 PM cite

Ana Lucy Bengochea:

by Ana Lucy Bengochea

Sep 9, 2006 3:25:00 PM cite

Andries Botha: Katharina, thank you for the question. You know nationality is very much based on the assumption that we feel good in places, in groupings of people that is homogenous and that which we can recognize. Nationality is something which is the political manifestation of our tribality. The fact that we group together around that which can be identified, that which we are familiar with. And so therefore politically that is always manipulated into nationalisms, and that groupness, that sense of the collectivity, is then manipulated and used, as a nationalism. However, humanity is a much more interesting thing, because it actually, it forces us to kind of tolerate the differences that is inherent in the inevitable diversity of our humanity. You know, it’s only because we are fearful of the other, we are fearful of difference, and the fact that that fear is capable to be manipulated politically. So, I think that’s what it’s all about.

by Andries Botha

Sep 9, 2006 3:25:00 PM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Answertext will be available soon.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 3:25:00 PM cite

Anthony Arnove: Whenever I see a question and there are “do we” in it, I think it’s worth again asking who we are, who we refers to. Because the question of who believes in nationality more than humanity, I think, has to be specified. I think a growing number of people in the world actually do believe in humanity more than nationality and are coming to question the narrow limits of nationalism, questioning the racism and xenophobia that goes hand in hand with nationalism. And for billions of people around the globe, these national ideologies, national boundaries don’t define their lives, and they do see their experience, do see their aspirations in terms of human aspirations or other aspirations that can’t be defined in national terms. So, if we were to understand who on the other hand values nationality more than humanity, I think we have to ask the question of who benefits from nationalism, who encourages nationalism, who has some much at stake in defending and in propping up nationalist ideologies. And there, I think you find in relationship to the vast majority of the world’s people, a teeny, teeny handful -– a teeny elite that benefits from nationalist ideology, and of course more people in that group because of our education system, because our media system is inculcated in those ideologies. But, so often, our lived experiences – our experiences day to day show the limits, show the contradictions, show the problems of that ideology, and I think more and more people in the world in fact are coming to that conclusion.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 3:25:00 PM cite

Anuradha Koirala: Identity is humanity. Identity is also nationality. You have to [inaudible] nationality and humanity are a part of life.

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 3:25:00 PM cite

Anuradha Mittal: Well, I think we believe more in nationality rather than humanity because these national borders, these artificial borders that have been built, they have actually built enclosures around our minds, our hearts, our souls; and it has been done to promote a vested interest. People who have drawn these borders would gain from these artificial borders being put and we have allowed our minds and souls to be enclosed. So, we will have to break these enclosures around our minds and hearts and souls if we are ever going to really be, see ourselves as one humanity, where we can feel each other’s pain, where we can laugh together, where race, nationality, religion, cannot separate us. So, it is really getting outside the cultural, this cultural separation and to start talking together as a humanity.

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 3:25:00 PM cite

Ashok Gangadean: That question again speaks of “we." And I would question, which “we” is this? If it's the “we” of the new emerging culture or the old culture of people who are more awakened global citizens and recognize the human family and across all of our borders, people who live from a global consciousness and global spirituality. That “we” is not going to really respect national borders and boundaries as primary over the connectivity of humanity across all of our borders. So I question, which “we” are we speaking off? I think the intention of the question is that, why do we everyday, unthinking people, who are living in a ego-based culture. Who tend to separate ourselves off from everything around us, and including our national boundaries. Or our culture. Or my own community. Or my family. Or my own identity. These are all artificial lenses and boxes that we live in from the ego-based culture. That we tend to put first above objective reality, which knows no borders from these artificial ego-constructs. So that if we really enter into this more integral holistic consciousness, we break through these artificial boundaries and borders. And that’s really what's called for in our planet today if we were to survive on this planet. To mature into a holistic and integral global consciousness. Beyond the old borders. Beyond nationalism, racism, sexism, fundamentalism, and all of the different forms in which we privilege and separate our own lens from everything else. And, this time has come to let go of those old borders and mature into a sustainable integral culture.

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 3:25:00 PM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: I don't know that we believe more in nationality than in humanity. I think we believe in the importance of humanity and we have a commitment to see that the human family is able to continue to live and prosper in ways that speak to being together more cooperatively, more lovingly, and nationality really speaks to our sense of particularized identity with a country. But I don't think we ever forget the fact that we belong to the human family while we may concurrently be citizens of any given country. I think when the human family and life itself on this planet is threatened that we come together in ways that ultimately transcend our nationalities and our citizenship and move into embracing ourselves as one human family. So I don't believe that we have a greater commitment to the idea of nationality more than our human family.

by Audrey Kitagawa

Sep 9, 2006 3:25:00 PM cite

Avi Primor: I am not sure, if this question is posed correctly that we believe more in nationality than in humanity. I don’t know if that’s correct. We need nationality. Maybe we still need nationality more than humanity, because we need a comprehensible frame. First of all we need a frame. A human being cannot live on his own, a human being needs a frame, he needs the help of the other, he needs cooperation with the other, he needs a common ground on which to base with the other, a common interest with the other, because that’s the only way to follow and to support his own interests. The frame has to be visible and comprehensible. Once there has been a frame of family, a frame of a tribe, then a frame of nation, but the meaning of nation changed a lot. The nations we know today, they aren’t as and they don’t look as they did two hundred years ago. Today they have a different frame, different limits, different dimensions, they are changing. They don’t stay the same and Germany is a good example for this change. Not a long time ago, there was an independent Bavarian nation, an independent Bavarian kingdom, an independent Prussian nation with an independent Prussian kingdom and so on. All these nations became one German nation and there will be a European nation. This will need time, we aren’t that far, but the direction is there and who knows how it will go on? But the frame can be enlarged as fast the human being is able to notice, to understand and to feel the larger frame. Well, humanity and nationality are not really contradictory, sometimes they are but they don’t have to be.

by Avi Primor

Sep 9, 2006 3:25:00 PM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: We all have our beliefs story, right? So, what you believe in, what you identify with--is your story. And that we’re also diverse; we have all different stories and some believe in humanities, some believe in nationality, some believe in the creation of both, of neither. By saying, why do we still believe more in nationality than in humanity? In that sense, in that system, we should believe more in humanity and why we don’t, why we’re more fixated with our nationality? Because we exist in the system that is based on separation, we ourselves are separate from the divine, from creation. And for that reinforce on a smaller scale, that we, these people walking around, these people sitting at this table are separate, separate from ourselves so then we as a collective group, or nationality that we are separate from humanity. When in truth, we’re all the same. We’re all a part of the great mystery and until we accept this truth, until we accept the fact that, we are all a part of humanity, then we will always have a division, always have this disconnection. Though, we still believe in that, because it’s just what is reinforced in our culture--this is individualistic way. We're a 112 voices but were unified and connected. Right? Right.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 3:25:00 PM cite

Benson Venegas: When you're a biologist, you learn that fear is a condition that is inherent in human being. You are afraid, or you develope fear, for everything that is different. This condition was very important in the older years for human being survival. You develop a sense of self-protection against everything that was different, or that everything that was new, or everything that was unknown. But the reality is that today we need to change our perception about fear. It's because fear is creating social boundaries amongst our society. It bring up some of these things that is very negative in our days, in days that we hoping to have a more integrated perspective of society in a global growing world, where nationalities, nationalism, racism, and other isms are just coming up. And it's just basically rooted in this concept of fear. I think we need to overcome fear and understand that differences doesn't mean something negative. Diversity, differences and diversity, can be something positive that really can build, and build foundations of a new society, a society where all of us a part of it. All of us are brothers and sisters. We need to understand that fear is not a condition that can limit, or prevent us to interact or connect with others.

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 3:25:00 PM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 3:25:00 PM cite

Bill Joy: I think the desire and ability to empathize so strongly with your group, with your family and your group is evolutionary. The identification of us, our group versus the other groups, siding with our group is a way of ensuring our group’s survival. So behaviors that we’ve developed which identify with our group and the pathways in our thinking and our being that lead to such behavior are very strong. Identifying with humanity in a very abstract way is very difficult. I think learning other people’s stories, traveling the world to learn their stories and becoming aware of the world through literature and whatever way we learn about other places in the world, other cultures, makes us more sensitive. It’s when we group everyone together into an abstract concept like humanity that bad behaviors become more possible. So each of us is a member of many groups and I think we all benefit from tolerance of other groups and not identifying so strongly with whatever group we perceive ourselves as part of that we miss out on our common humanity.

by Bill Joy

Sep 9, 2006 3:25:00 PM cite

Bora Cosic: There we are still very traditional and conservative in understanding of: own origin, environment, properties of our tight horizon, own back yard, family, familiar track and /or nation. By that we ignore the wide picture of human kind, of other and different individuals: foreigners, interlopers, separators, and aptrids. From which we should better learn then to reject them or despise them.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 3:25:00 PM cite

Brian J. Weller: Well, yeah, I’ve been thinking about this question. It’s probably that people gain their identity by belonging to groups and tribes, geographical boundedness as in a nation state or region, and as long as identity is a function of limiting beliefs. I think part of our limiting belief system is to – nationality is a limiting belief system. It has a value in terms of our tribal consciousness, but it’s a liability in terms of our humanity because humanity is a much bigger frame than nationality. So, it may be true that “I am British” and maybe you are from wherever you live, but that diversity of nationality does not mean that we don’t sit inside a bigger frame and that bigger frame is actually our humanity. I believe we’ve been called to declare humanity. I think when we get to do that on mass we’ll have probably less and less of these international conflicts. But I believe it does in a sense require us to see our collective consciousness is a bigger frame. The other piece on this, by the way, is I think when we think about – you know, often when people sing their national anthem it arouses a lot of heart-full feelings in terms of emotion. That’s one of the reasons why I think we get stuck into nationality, because it’s backed up by a lot of emotive propaganda and a lot of emotive communication. I think if we can shift that into the global sense of being human together and sing the human song, maybe we need some national – we need some international anthems. So, maybe we need a global anthem. Maybe the true global anthems are the anthems of the heart. “All We Need is Love” is a good start for these.

by Brian J. Weller