Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream. Mahatma Gandhi believed in a secular India. Nelson Mandela promised and brought a nation based not on racial divides but on true equality between the races. All three had one thing in common: they fought against divides. For Martin Luther King Jr., it was racism in America; for Gandhi, freedom from the concept of untouchability, from religious divides and caste-based exclusions; for Mandela, it was apartheid. Even now, the great battle goes on. That battle is the basis of this humble essay on the notion of social divides.
Man has always been a fragmented animal. At the dawn of time, it was distance that separated them; in cities and villages, it became religion. In some areas, it was your profession that described who you were. Notice the careful way of segregation; people who believe in divisions believe innately in this concept, that one feature, and only one, overrides every other characteristic of a human being. It is a conceit and arrogance that guides this kind of thinking : a form of intriinsic self-belief in the superior worth and value of themselves. Once you start thinking you are different, you begin to believe that you can express your difference in a simplistic form i.e. inferiority and superiority.
It is easy for anyone to ask why these concepts cannot be accepted by any rational human being. After all, isn't a morally honest man better than a corrupt, morally degenerate criminal? The answer is 'yes', naturally, but it is precisely for this situation that we may apply those concepts. It is alright to judge a person, but to judge a thousand of his ilk based on a single person is not only wrong, it is completely unacceptable. We must not differentiate except on an individual scale, judging only people we know and never others with the same skin, or caste, or creed by the actions of the individual.
It is possible to overcome prejudice; Barack Obama and countless other examples bear testimony to this truth. It is probable that any society, sooner or later, will cast aside all supposed division, and fully embrace the persecuted sector; it is a necessity for survival, evinced by natural selection and evolutions's natural course. Man is a product of that indomitable cycle; it stands to reason that he is affected by it, that he must mix with other humans, regardless of barrier. However, it is also likely that a society can bring these divisions to the fore, and wage a war against the discriminated. Nazi Germany is a vivid example of this; it stands for South Africa during apartheid, and Russia during its many purges under Stalin. It is necessary to note that no society could ever survive for long; Nazi Germany collapsed soon after its inception by Hitler in 1933, at the end of the second World War. Russia or the USSR ceased to exist in the 1990s; South Africa was freed in 1994. Divisions, as so many internationalist movements implicitly assume, are the base of any society. As long they are not discriminated against, that society will emerge truly successful.
But why? How can we assume that a society unrestrained by social division can become truly successful? The answer lies in the concept of war.
War, as any peace-loving person can tell you, serves no purpose. It is wasteful in the extreme, damaging economies, creating harsh conditions for the people, with government squandered on an act which is banned in every country: genocide, commited legally by the governement, against a people it considers different. War is the ultimate manifestation of the consequences of social divisions. We will find riots, attacks, brutality and savagery commited by ordinary citizens against a member of a 'different' colour, or religion. Once there are divisions, war will naturally follow, benefitting no one and leaving both sides weakened. A society will be left impoverished, broken and weakened by any war that affects it, and only a society with no divisions can ever hope to achieve the exalted state of the original nation.
But then, we must ask ourselves: what is the most fundamental divsion in the mind? The answer is simple : the concept of a nation.
At the risk of sounding like a Marxist, it must be said that the concept of nations and states are useless. A nation is a statement to the world that we are different, and from this wars must arise. The consequences of war are reminiscent of the worst aspects of human nature; they lead to little more than ruin for anything embroiled in conflict. The concept of the human nation is by far the most divisive. It guarantees protection and assistance only to a certain select people, denying assistance to those direly in need of it, and helping only 'friends'. The nation is partial to humanity; it serves only those it considers important, and denies those who do not. At the very extreme, the nation has the capacity of war.
How do we end this state of affairs? How do we truly bring real equality among all the peoples of the Earth? Einstein proposed a solution once: let only one organisation rule the world, and no other. One nation, one people, one government.
How does this solve the problem? It eliminates war. It has the potential to unite people like never before. It can lead to true government, real government, and has the capacity to affect things globally, instead of locally. Ordinary nations today have a limited effect in the world, confined as they are to regions and boundaries. The supranation has no boundaries, no limits; every human is a citizen; nobody obeys different laws. It has the ability and power to reverse a global crisis, and enough power to help all mankind. It alone is the solution to all the problems multiple nations cause; nations cause divisions, divisions cause war, war causes destruction. The supranation alone may prevent this.
And so we end this essay on the fallibility and irrelevance of divisions. Divisions are the greatest fallacy of human structure; to remove it must be any true leader's aim. We must remove these divisions, not through Hitler's way, but through Gandhi's way of peace and non-violence, binding us all together in connections that go deeper than our essence. At our very heart, we are all human. Why then stay divided?