Which one do you suggest as the axis for unity?

[New]

Which one do you suggest as the axis for unity?

We all might be from different countries and different societies, with different believes and different perspectives, but one thing we all do agree upon, is the fact that for one group of people to act in harmony and to pursue a common target and cause, that be collective progress, the people in charge are always in desperate need of an axis for unity.

But there has been different kinds of this unity axis being chosen by different groups of people in different corners of this round planet, upon the long line of existence in human history, leading to a wide variation of end results.

In fact the very core point of this query came to my mind while I was reading a very interesting thread on Iran Pakistan history of relations, by our dear friend @Atnaz. That came to my brain, what is the reason behind this ocean of everyday getting wider dissension between the members of these two nation, while it doesn’t take one to be a historian to notice the people of these two nation has most of their long history called each other compatriot. Is this newly born but deep wide ocean of difference in viewpoints just a reason of a wrong choice?

I mean is it about the difference of choice in unity axis of the two nation? One being Shias and the other being Sunnis?

So one might wonder what should be the best option to be chosen as the axis for unity, to unite a group of people into chasing a common goal, social redemption and prosperity.

I’ve gathered a group of suggestions, but I’m more than willing to hear the thoughts of you guys, either.

Every choice has sure it’s cons and pros, if ethnicity being chosen, then what would happen to the nations with different variety of ethnicities, I mean for example Iran for instance is a composition of different ethnicities, from Balochs to Lurs, Kurds Turks, Persians and others, if the axis for unity for example is going to be taken shape around an ethnicity then what about a major minority like Kurds in Turkey or Turks in Iran?

I don’t think there needs to be a debate on why shouldn’t religion be taken as the unity axis of a nation, there were always bloody different sects in religions and not just that but also many different interpretations in each sect leading to nowhere but the very same situation we all see in nowadays middle east. So let’s not talk about choosing an axle of dispersion as an axis for solidarity.

But what is the best choice?

Is it nationality? If that’s the case, then one might ask, wasn’t false prides caused by bloated nationalisms the cause of many bloody battles in human history?

Then what do you guys think, the best choice is?

PS: This is a thread made just to think together, so please try to keep it peaceful.

 

[Neptune]

Religion is a proven way to get backstabbed.

I believe nationality can bring people together. But I need to underline the fact that it's not etnic nationalism I am talking about. Anyone holding a Turkish citizenship is worth rushing mountains to me for his/her freedom, regardless of his/her ethnicity or religion. But cultural, etnic, linguistics commons can also be a way, example Turkey-Azerbaijan. But this type of unities can come only after domestic political, national unity is achieved.

 

[rahi2357]

Interesting question to ask but it is more than clear that you can't call something that divides people into groups , as axis of unity . Then what's the meaning of unity?
I answered " nothing needed " . To be honest , the true answer can be " Nothing special needed " , In other words accepting the maximum diversity , may be the axis for unity .

Diversity and survival | ACM Interactions

 

[Aramagedon]

Voted for nationality but religion is important too.

 

[New]

Religion is a proven way to get backstabbed.

I believe nationality can bring people together. But I need to underline the fact that it's not etnic nationalism I am talking about. Anyone holding a Turkish citizenship is worth rushing mountains to me for his/her freedom, regardless of his/her ethnicity or religion. But cultural, etnic, linguistics commons can also be a way, example Turkey-Azerbaijan. But this type of unities can come only after domestic political, national unity is achieved.

My friend, I can clearly understand your stance, in fact there were times that nationalism, or patriotism were the ultimate tools to insure the integrity of a nation in the face of internal and external existential threats. But aren't we in a millennium in which human civilization is supposed to transit in an unbelievable pace from a world of islanded nations into a global village and global civilization?
Not so many years ago that was just a wet dream, but isn't a unified Europe a sign of possibility for emergence of that Utopia?

 

[rmi5]

Interesting question to ask but it is more than clear that you can't call something that divides people into groups , as axis of unity . Then what's the meaning of unity?
I answered " nothing needed " . To be honest , the true answer can be " Nothing special needed " , In other words accepting the maximum diversity , may be the axis for unity .

Diversity and survival | ACM Interactions

I agree with you and I voted the same.

 

[New]

Interesting question to ask but it is more than clear that you can't call something that divides people into groups , as axis of unity . Then what's the meaning of unity?
I answered " nothing needed " . To be honest , the true answer can be " Nothing special needed " , In other words accepting the maximum diversity , may be the axis for unity .

Diversity and survival | ACM Interactions

Hi, dear rahi.
I was long awaiting your presence dude.
What you mentioned is indeed the very ultimate truth, the integrity via diversity, the unity in multiplicity, has for history been what mankind dreamed.
But that's just possible in a world of utopia, and not a world where lunatics like Saddam and Hitler exist.
In fact there surely comes the time when you need to line up a group of people inside a geographical border, around an axis of unity, to stand against the excessive ambitions of a sick mind like Hitler and Saddam.

 

[raptor22]

My most diplomatic answer would be "humanity" ....

 

[Neptune]

My friend, I can clearly understand your stance, in fact there were times that nationalism, or patriotism were the ultimate tools to insure the integrity of a nation in the face of internal and external existential threats. But aren't we in a millennium in which human civilization is supposed to transit in an unbelievable pace from a world of islanded nations into a global village and global civilization?
Not so many years ago that was just a wet dream, but isn't a unified Europe a sign of possibility for emergence of that Utopia?

Yes indeed, humanity comes first. One question, which nations temd to be in favor of this globalization?

 

[haman10]

The question is very easy , it's answer is not .

the options provided are simply too simplistic and quite frankly i myself - with all due respect to my brothers here - don't like the words "humanity" and "nothing" to be given as an answer cause i find those words very slogan-ish .

remember we're not describing a utopia here .

 

[New]

Yes indeed, humanity comes first. One question, which nations temd to be in favor of this globalization?

You right my friend, there are too few nations, reaching the very level of pursuing a globalization concept, but if there ever should be a time for human being to start thinking about that, is in fact this very exact day.
But before jumping into an answer let me question the very concept of the word "Humanity".
In fact there is a very long list of elite philosophers, questioning the existence of a concept named "Humanity".
Does even humanity exists or as almost the majority of philosophers suggest, that's just an internal state of fearing the unknowns?
What I'm trying to say is the fact that, we can't for sure say that something called "Humanity" even do exists, let alone trying to structure a globalized unity around it.

The question is very easy , it's answer is not .

the options provided are simply too simplistic and quite frankly i myself - with all due respect to my brothers here - don't like the words "humanity" and "nothing" to be given as an answer cause i find those words very slogan-ish .

remember we're not describing a utopia here .

You are right Haman.

 

[Neptune]

The question is very easy , it's answer is not .

the options provided are simply too simplistic and quite frankly i myself - with all due respect to my brothers here - don't like the words "humanity" and "nothing" to be given as an answer cause i find those words very slogan-ish .

remember we're not describing a utopia here .

I can agree partly. The breakpoint of this topic can be the perspective and approach to the matter. Humanity or vice versa are high opinions nowadays especially for those let's say are pro-european but when you come up from a personal approach. The thing is this matter requires a state-management-perspective in which individuals of the bureaucracy should act realistically and be materialist and pragmatic to be more precise if its political unity, vs. we are talking about. In fact he who ever leaped into personal opinion thinking when ruling his country has either failed badly or is about to give heavy costs. Ex: Erdogan. So yes, humanity or religious policies are bullsh.it in politics and that includes human rights as well if I were a politician.

You right my friend, there are too few nations, reaching the very level of pursuing a globalization concept, but if there ever should be a time for human being to start thinking about that, is in fact this very exact day.
But before jumping into an answer let me question the very concept of the word "Humanity".
In fact there is a very long list of elite philosophers, questioning the existence of a concept named "Humanity".
Does even humanity exists or as almost the majority of philosophers suggest, that's just an internal state of fearing the unknowns?
What I'm trying to say is the fact that, we can't for sure say that something called "Humanity" even do exists, let alone trying to structure a globalized unity around it.


You are right Haman.

Got it. Please read my quote above. Also, think of the very few elite group you've mentioned. Aren't they either European or American. There is a classic saying in ME; "Its all a plan of America". Yes this can be a little absurd saying but as a person I can support humanitarian approach to globalization. But as a fellow patriot or a statesman; I would say humanism is as dangerous as micro nationalism.

 

[omega supremme]

RELIGION is the strongest axis for unity among people . If one goes by nationality then only on national interest everyone will work than Pakistan has no reason to have good relations with muslims states we don't need to raise our voice for Palestinians and accept israel as it will give us alot of gains in military and other perspectives so in reality religion is the base for Pakistan and than nationality both are in away coherent to each another and this is a reason we have good relations with Iran

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Which one do you suggest as the axis for unity?

We all might be from different countries and different societies, with different believes and different perspectives, but one thing we all do agree upon, is the fact that for one group of people to act in harmony and to pursue a common target and cause, that be collective progress, the people in charge are always in desperate need of an axis for unity.

But there has been different kinds of this unity axis being chosen by different groups of people in different corners of this round planet, upon the long line of existence in human history, leading to a wide variation of end results.

In fact the very core point of this query came to my mind while I was reading a very interesting thread on Iran Pakistan history of relations, by our dear friend @Atnaz. That came to my brain, what is the reason behind this ocean of everyday getting wider dissension between the members of these two nation, while it doesn’t take one to be a historian to notice the people of these two nation has most of their long history called each other compatriot. Is this newly born but deep wide ocean of difference in viewpoints just a reason of a wrong choice?

I mean is it about the difference of choice in unity axis of the two nation? One being Shias and the other being Sunnis?

So one might wonder what should be the best option to be chosen as the axis for unity, to unite a group of people into chasing a common goal, social redemption and prosperity.

I’ve gathered a group of suggestions, but I’m more than willing to hear the thoughts of you guys, either.

Every choice has sure it’s cons and pros, if ethnicity being chosen, then what would happen to the nations with different variety of ethnicities, I mean for example Iran for instance is a composition of different ethnicities, from Balochs to Lurs, Kurds Turks, Persians and others, if the axis for unity for example is going to be taken shape around an ethnicity then what about a major minority like Kurds in Turkey or Turks in Iran?

I don’t think there needs to be a debate on why shouldn’t religion be taken as the unity axis of a nation, there were always bloody different sects in religions and not just that but also many different interpretations in each sect leading to nowhere but the very same situation we all see in nowadays middle east. So let’s not talk about choosing an axle of dispersion as an axis for solidarity.

But what is the best choice?

Is it nationality? If that’s the case, then one might ask, wasn’t false prides caused by bloated nationalisms the cause of many bloody battles in human history?

Then what do you guys think, the best choice is?

PS: This is a thread made just to think together, so please try to keep it peaceful.

The answer to your question is not simple. If your question relates to nation state, that is country than the best "axis of unity" is nationalism. The Turkey is a stellar example of this. However I think your question does not relate to the nation state. We are in 2015 and we have moved into post nation state phase. Today the new evolving order is the "supra state" that is a collection of countries working togather in common good. Examples of this are European Union and even NATO although that covers only one facet but for sure there is significant overlap netween the two.

For a supra state I think there has to be a "axis of unity" and by definition it will be complex composite. This will revolve around a common "civilization" which will have been formed by various variables to some degree. Race, religion, geography and history will have all played in forming that civilizational complex.

When I say religion I don't mean in it's literal or dogmatic sense. That type of religion is often divisive and not unifying. I emtirely secular but i cannot ignore that I hold certain values. Call them cultural. These values have been informed and shaped by religion. So for example I would not feel comfortable if my sister walked in half naked. I have more conservative value than most Europeans despite having grown up in Europe. The reason was at some sublimnal level Islam moulded my thinking.

So in this context when I look at Pakistan I know that we have to move toward some sort of supra state like European Union. I know we can't do it now but then in Europe in 1930 they could not have drreamed either. I think there is sufficient common core between Iran on the basis of history, race, geography top belong to one civilizational complex. I include Afghanistan in it as well. In the long run I know this will happen. Here is the interesting thing. If you look back in history you will often see this region united under some power.

I think just like France-Germany started the European prokect and laid the "axis of unity" I think at some time in the futrure Iran and Pakistan will also do it. Then other countries around us will also join in like what happened in Europe. There is the interesting example of Turkey. As you know in history Anatolia wa also p[art of this domain. I don't think Turkey will join in this. I believe her edestiny is with Europe. The reason is her geography and the shear pull of Europe.

As a interesting asides do you realise that Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan use the same Nastaliq based script? I believe the Turks also used it but they adopted the Roman. The other thing is large part of this region speaks common Iranic languages or related Indo Iranian languages. This is from Kurds in Turkey to Pashtuns in Pakistan.

Of course I know at the present the Shia/Sunni divide is causing divergence but we saw the similar Catholic/Protestant divergance and even wars in Europe. Hoewever as our societies evolve these things will even out. Don't forget being weak we have fallen victim to external forces that have created gulf in our societies.

I have no doubt. I doubt Pakistan is going to join South Amercian Free Trade Association and I don't Iran is off to join the African Union. However this will take time for our societies to emerge, In the meantime we must focus on building our countries up. If Iran is prosperous it is better for Pakistan. If Pakistan is prosperous ditto for Iran.

Germany in 1943 invaded Greece. Today they are spending $100 of billions bailing it out. We have to similary evolve. I think it will take at least another generation for us to reach that level of maturity.

Iranian languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Arminkh]

Axis for unity is always an exterior threat or challenge. It is not correct to say nothing is needed.

As an example, Earth will never become united until the day there is an exterior threat or challenge either from other human colonies in other planets in far future or from other species.

There is a very nice book called The Life Cycle of the Civilizations that I highly recommend.