Thanks for your comment - though I'm not entirely sure I understand it! However, having driven across a few state lines lately, I couldn't help noticing (1) that the differences are sometimes obvious, but (2) they are obvious because we make them obvious. One state will grade its roads better, but won't do anything to improve the identical road across the (completely fictitious) state line, and so on.
Of course, there are natural boundaries, too. There are rivers, mountain ranges, differences in landscape - but then the question becomes: why do human beings see these as boundaries? Why do we persist in defining our in-group by defining out-groups? Because I do think we all do it. It seems part of being human, and being social animals.
But the point of my post was simpler than this. We all define ourselves as members of various groups. Well and good. We can do so without hating members of other groups. Our memberships can be positive, not negative.
At least, I hope they can be! This is what I've been taught, and what I believe. If it isn't so, we are all lost.
no subject
Of course, there are natural boundaries, too. There are rivers, mountain ranges, differences in landscape - but then the question becomes: why do human beings see these as boundaries? Why do we persist in defining our in-group by defining out-groups? Because I do think we all do it. It seems part of being human, and being social animals.
But the point of my post was simpler than this. We all define ourselves as members of various groups. Well and good. We can do so without hating members of other groups. Our memberships can be positive, not negative.
At least, I hope they can be! This is what I've been taught, and what I believe. If it isn't so, we are all lost.