Amazon.com Widgets
  • Liberalized versions are best

    Angry bird does not realize that affiliation with certain communities and groups is a key component of individual identity. Many anti-national identity individuals think abolishing national identity is "freeing up the individual" when all you are doing is removing a chunk of his/her identity instead. It is human nature to affiliate yourself with a like minded group.

    Another issue with abolishing national identity is that there is know saying how united a nation would be. Think Yugoslavia or the current United States (although it still has an identity- to some degree- there is little/no unifying factor within the general population as there once was). Different groups would form their own enclaves should SHTF and (assuming these groups oppose each other) could lead to an all out civil conflict. United we Stand, divided we fall.

    The type of national identity I support is not a shallow one, but one that makes room for human rights and achieving better representation of the people while emphasizing it's culture/history at the same time (see my "America should break into 6-9 nations bounded under an EU-style central government" debate- there is two, one is a mistake, the other is my actual argument- to get a better idea of what I mean).

  • Identity should be there

    There are different regions in our world and to express the views we need identity and every country map contain something different that tells something about their country ,for the overall control over the
    region and to differentiate it from other region it plays a vital role.Identity of a nation is must

  • It's not that bad of a thing

    I would not mind people knowing me from coming from any nation or state. Why should I feel afraid or embarrassed of who I am. National identities are pretty annoying, however I do not care if they do exist now and in the future. 'The rest of these words are filler words.'

  • National identity is a question of reality, not necessity

    Literally, do we need a national identity? Not necessarily; there are people who live without national identity. The fact is that we do have identities of national, of racial, of gender and so forth. Thus i think the right question to ask is why do we need a national identity?

  • I am not defined by others

    No, I should not be defined by others. National identity is just some collectivist rubbish that we as a race still haven't outgrown. Did I choose my nation? No. The tribe, the public, society and nations are just a number of individuals. I will refuse to be part of any collective group I didn't choose to be in.

  • I am me, I can identify myself without a corporation to interfere

    No Joinder required, I am me will always be me and I need no corporation to contol me, is the whole world turning into a bankers puppet like Churchill, Hitler, King, Bush, etc ? Get a life !..
    Nazi Germany here we come, the mark of the Beast is upon us, NWO here we come, take your ID can shove it ! No need for ID ever !..

    WE ARE SOVEREIGN !.. WE ARE SOVEREIGN !..WE ARE SOVEREIGN !..WE ARE SOVEREIGN !..WE ARE SOVEREIGN !...WE ARE SOVEREIGN !...WE ARE SOVEREIGN !...WE ARE SOVEREIGN !...WE ARE SOVEREIGN !

  • National identity is a question of reality, not necessity

    Literally, do we need a national identity? Not necessarily; there are people who live without national identity. The fact is that we do have identities of national, of racial, of gender and so forth. Thus i think the right question to ask is why do we need a national identity?


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Debarati says2015-03-11T17:21:03.190
I perfectly think that the topic is irrelevant because peace is the crying need more than any thing that matters. Peace and understanding can solve all the global problems. Peace can only be brought if we all acknowledge in ourselves that we are interdependent and need to have brotherhood among ourselves rather than be separated by fragmented walls of countries and continents.
If we could be one united world then probably there would be better understanding and the present so called countries and superpowers would never compete amongst themselves in matters of population and world records. They could also heal there deformities easily by seeking help from others.
ramramgeorge says2015-03-11T19:18:13.957
World peace can be achieved WITHOUT "unifying" (I suppose you mean one world government). The European Space Agency or hell even the EU are perfect examples of "unification without extreme globalism". Again, going completely individualistic creates a society where- out of human nature- people don't necessarily become "free thinkers" but rather join their own sects and divide themselves amongst their own lines. National identity (when not abused and used in a liberal manner) can truly be a great unifying factor. Nations like Australia and the Scandinavians (even though the latter believe in the government promoting the individual, their ethnic homogeny gives them their own identity) have great levels of trust and/or civic engagement- essential components of democracy.

If your idea of "unification" revolves around each nation mutually respecting each other and their way of life (as long as human rights are not breached) i.e. the non-aggression principle and collaborating voluntarily to solve issues- without tarnishing their own uniqueness to be celebrated- then that sounds like a good start to "global utopia" I suppose.