If You Believe You Are a Citizen of the World, You Are A Citizen of Nowhere
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 06. 2024
- Want to join the debate? Check out the Intelligence Squared website to hear about future live events and podcasts: www.intelligencesquared.com
__________________________
“If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what citizenship means.”
When Theresa May uttered these words at the Tory party conference in 2016, there was uproar. May was targeting the liberal establishment, who flit business class from Mayfair to Monaco, from Davos to Doha; those in positions of power, who, as May put it, ‘behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road’.
But many people who don’t fit in this frequent flyer category felt under attack too. For this group, believing you are a citizen of the world is a badge of honour, not shame. The cosmopolitan impulse, they believe, isn’t about loyalty to any single community. On the contrary, you can be a citizen of your street, your city, your country and the entire globe. And in our interconnected world, those with a burning concern for global justice, for the environment, for the strife and carnage happening beyond our borders, see themselves as part of humanity at large - as citizens of the world.
But for a different group of people, May’s words resonated deeply. These are the people who feel genuinely rooted in their communities, who feel the strongest sense of solidarity with those who share their history, language and other elements of a common culture. These people often feel sneered at as nationalists or worse, as bigots, by the elites who do not understand their profound intuition that the nation state is the natural expression of group identity.
To unpack these divisions at the heart of contemporary politics, Intelligence Squared is bringing together Simon Schama, one of Britain’s most celebrated historians, who embodies the cosmopolitan spirit; and Elif Shafak, the Turkish novelist and commentator, who calls herself a ‘world citizen and a global soul’. Joining them will be the author David Goodhart, whose bestseller The Road To Somewhere identifies two tribes -’Somewheres’, who feel strong local and national attachments, and ‘Anywheres’, global villagers who value autonomy and mobility; and David Landsman, a former diplomat now in the corporate world, who is concerned about the growing intellectualisation of work, which is widening the gap between the professional classes and everyone else.
the coronavirus has dramatically revealed the importance of "Somewhere"
the coronavirus has dramatically revealed the importance of "Anywhere"
There are different ways to look at it.
@@SawChaser I take your point - being able to work from anywhere etc - is an advantage. Until companies realise they can pay someone who's cost base is in Bulgaria rather than the Cotswolds.
@@joshjones9878 With "Anywhere" I thought about the need for international cooperation in time of crisis.
9990899
Yet the economy is global, and if one country closes it’s borders and deals with coronavirus very well internally (take Australia or New Zealand) but their trade partners do not, this impacts both countries negatively, so a global outlook is very important. Plus I suppose the debate was much more around identity and logistics/ freedom from tyranny somewhat protected by national identity.
"Mr. Deutscher, what are your roots?"
"I'm a Jew. Trees have roots, Jews don't; Jews have legs."
Beautifully put haha.
Jews have roots , The Hebrew don't ! Hebrew as a term , comes from the verb עבר .
I'm from Morocco .I would rather being a Citizen of the World .
A citizen of nowhere !
Just of the Planet Earth . הארץ
LA TERRE DES HOMMES .
@Robert Campbell True, Israeli Jews tend to have roots.
@@TheLivirus Indeed. Risking one's life to defend the plot of land you or your parents cultivated, that gives skin in the game, that creates roots.
I recall that people use to call British people “subjects” rather than “citizens.” When did this change?
@@milahbimilah298 a to
Using a poll from 2011 concerning how people of the UK feel about their country is an odd choice. A lot can happen in 7 years, such as the Scottish Independence referendum, the Brexit referendum and a number of terrorist attacks to name but a few points of interest.
Not much have changed, if anything percentage of people agreeing now would be even bigger. Discrepancy just shows how out of touch and delusional liberals are.
4 out of 5 Tyrannosaurus' would like to kick out the Pterodactyls. This type of hatred needs to be stopped! Let's not talk about the international banks that are profiting off of what is happening right now.
There is no such a thing as “citizen of the world.” In the real world we live, there are nation states, a very recent creation in human history. And that’s where citizenship and citizenship rights come in. And that’s why “human rights” as defined and propagated by Western governments and international institutions are not in reality human rights, but citizenship rights.
A citizen of the world is a myth and it is perhaps applicable to very few rich individuals or owners of multinationals. There are passports, visas, financial requirements, hostility from this or that local population of an X nation-state, nationalist fervor, and many other barriers that prevents one to be a citizen of another country and enjoy at least the “human rights“ enshrined in the UN Human Rights Declaration.
In pur real political economic system, capital is a citizen of the world, for it is free to move anywhere, and in many cases, if not often, without even paying taxes. But a human being, the creator of capital, cannot be a citizen of the world.
@@nadimmahjoub hmm...
Nobody is going to raise their hand to the British Change question in public.
First ot all, let's define precisely what "citizen of the world" might actually mean.
It might not be obvious.
Agreed, some people may think of a nomadic existence without national identity, some people may think of it as international cooperation and outlook, some people may see it as anti-nationalism and/ or anti-patriotism, some people may see it as complete removal of citizenship, and when it’s not specified for the debate it becomes rather confusing.
Elif says she rejects the premise of in-group/out-group that nationalism is based upon, but then goes on to say she likes being a member of multiple groups. She can't eat her cake and have it too. Groups are defined by membership rules. You cannot remove those rules and maintain the groups. This is exactly May's point.
She cant be an Iranian, Pakistani, Chinese, Japanese, Brasilian, Somalian...... well, she cant be anything than "European".
@@alniseschrenkek6348 Somali*
@S Han dude just speak in your native language, I just had a seizure trying to read your comment.
@@oliverhardman3513 At the very least he may write in a foreign language to a certain extent. On the other side, you are simply ignorant. Jason's argument touches only the surface of the whole debate and, hence, is improper at best.
I don't think having a connection to different parts of the world has any 'rules' - except following laws. It's not really having your cake and eating it too because it's not contradictory, peoples identities are a multiplicity.
We’re citizens of the World say the 99% white middle class audience. How many have lived in the slums of Mumbai? How many in the shanty towns in Bangkok or the favelas of Rio? I’m guessing none.
It’s almost a comedy.
Dude. EASTERN EUROPE. Take Eastern Europe alone. Even that is not part of their definition of "the world".
The League of Nations post-1919, United Nations, European Union, NATO, World Bank, International Monetary Fund etc have done a huge amount to reduce war and conflict. So of course being a citizen of the world is a good thing.
You're a citizen of the world when you're very rich.
That's the privilege only a few can have.
False. You're a citizen on the world, if you are an artist in the true sense.
If you have a EU or Norwegian citizenship, Yes!!! you are citizen of the world but if have are a Syrian citizen or Turkish or Palestinian you are not a citizen of the world..
I hate the argument "you should not feel morally superior for holding your views"... Literally everyone feels morally superior for holding their views, because if they didn't they would change their views until they do. The whole reason we hold ethical beliefs is because we find them morally superior to alternatives.
In fact, to hold the view that "you should not feel morally superior for holding your views" is to maintain a position of moral authority and therefore superiority.
Not every belief is an ethical one
I don't agree because, in my opinion, you don't want to become dogmatic esp if better ideas come along esp when it is needed regardless if it is a necessary evil.
@@tiermacgirl who would choose to hold an unethical belief?
Great discussion, everyone got their view without the dramatics, name calling etc. different views, a good point for us to consider and think about..
I wonder what she thinks about the dichotomy of who is pulling down the statues now. Not exactly the nationalists!
The lady from Turkey, has said very important thing, the polarising of politics we can minimise or help turn tide, I agree if all sides come to the table and discuss without the name calling; importance of common values and also respect different cultures including the cultures here beforehand, how to manage the impending technological revolution and jobs for all without discrimination etc
I can detect the ' wandering ' Jew mindset in Simon Schama, where he is truly " at home " anywhere in the World. Yet, he constantly refers to his " Jewishness " as being the essence of his being. For as long as you do not impinge on his " small hats tribe ". you are fine. What comes to mind is Alexander Solzhynitsyn (1918-2008) when he said: " For Jews, there is nothing more insulting than the TRUTH" .
Facts
I’ve always felt like a citizen of the world. Ive never felt comfortable around people who have such strong beliefs and little tolerance. We are one with different ideas but we should all have the same idea when it comes to basic human rights. Be kind, compassionate and believe that we are all equal in worth. No one on earth should be treated better just because they are good looking, have more money etc etc.
I would agree with you but why do you assume that people with strong beliefs automatically have little tolerance?
Being a citizen of the world and being firmly and lovingly attached to a particular spot on Earth are in no way exclusive. Citizen of the World simply calls attention to the underlying relationship of unity all people have, which is as much deep ecology as being fully in love with your particular tree. We are all one, or one is all of us. Political borders have caused as many wars as religions have.
Governments and authorities like to tell you that you are a citizen of their space only. Citizens can be regulated through a combination of rights and responsibilities. If those citizens shift loyalty to a larger vision they might not for example pay national taxes so readily.
I hope that the Turkish lady would support the notion that Istanbul would be a much better place if more than half the citizens were new non-Turkish arrivals.
It already is. When you walk in the streets of the Istanbul, you see more foreigners than Turks.
There is no such a thing as “citizen of the world.” In the real world we live, there are nation states, a very recent creation in human history. And that’s where citizenship and citizenship rights come in. And that’s why “human rights” as defined and propagated by Western governments and international institutions are not in reality human rights, but citizenship rights.
A citizen of the world is a myth and it is perhaps applicable to very few rich individuals or owners of multinationals. There are passports, visas, financial requirements, hostility from this or that local population of an X nation-state, nationalist fervor, and many other barriers that prevents one to be a citizen of another country and enjoy at least the “human rights“ enshrined in the UN Human Rights Declaration.
In pur real political economic system, capital is a citizen of the world, for it is free to move anywhere, and in many cases, if not often, without even paying taxes. But a human being, the creator of capital, cannot be a citizen of the world.
What I was missing in their discussion was the impact meritocracy has on people's sense of self-value and how it can be made more compatible with a well functioning democracy.
Thats a whole different discussion lol
Maybe holding these forums somewhere other than in a metropolitan bubble would be a good idea
Where is the place outside the bubble now? You're watching this on a computer connected to billions of others, in almost every country in the world. There is no going back to the old model. The nations of the world succeed or fail largely together, like it or not.
valar There are places outside the metropolitan elite, whether that elite likes the fact or not.
If it didn't happen in a city with 12 million inhabitants where would it take place? Oxford? Cambridge? Leeds? Manchester? Birmingham?
All great metropolitan centres overwhelmingly leftist and ethnically mixed - perhaps we should see the participants and audience who can make their way to Bingham or Brailsford?
All of the places with enough people to share thoughts are by definition metropolitan.
The point is, the whole world is metropolitan now, compared to anything from 20 years ago, unless you are a Yanomamo living in the Amazon or something and maybe not even then. There's no going back. The only debate is over what 'metropolitan' or 'global' means and who it will benefit going forward. But to retreat into an imagined and romanticized nationalistic past is nonsense.
No, the world isn't metropolitan. The problem is the world *that matters* is.
If you go and live in a monocultural backwater with a population of a few thousand anti-liberalists, what effect could you possibly hope to have on the world?
What happens when your people doesnt have a country?
You're a citizen of the world. Borders are a social construct. You can go wherever you want.
Probably Kurds.
In my case, I was talking about Berbers (or to be even more precise, the Kabyles) but I believe there are a lot of other countryless peoples in the world.
Humanity is not ready for a borderless world.
I think thats bullshit, theres at least 500 million Han Chinese - thats 1/15 of the population right there
If you've got the money, you're a citizen of the world. Otherwise, you're a citizen of nowhere.
Where is no where ? Makes no sense ,gibberish ,garbage.
@@markdemell3717 it's not. If you're poor, you don't belong anywhere. Only rich people can truly be a world citizen. Money and its power give them this privileged position
@@atakanorgan3386 The MEEK shall inherit the EARTH ! I belong here !
@@markdemell3717 Don't be offended, I'm also poor. I know that I can't travel the world or start a new life wherever I want. I can't even be a respected member in my society because of poverty. Am I really a world citizen or even a citizen of my own country. I am not. I am just a helpless human being.
@@atakanorgan3386 Trust in the creator and he will open your mind and heart and soul.
To feel as being "Citizen of the world" is easy for us Belgians, since we live in a small, insignificant piece of land that was part of bigger neighbours most of it's history.
That's true of alot of smaller European countries. I think its harder for countries like the US, Britain, or Russia that are used to thinking of themselves as an empire.
@@Magnulus76That because Belgium is not a country, it a combination of two basically the Netherlands and France who dnt like each other.
Everybody is going to chase their own interests based on the emotion they have developed. Don't trust anyone, create your own future. If you fail, you will always be able to survive, but being a slave to someone who doesn't award you enough, should not be your choice. Just find the correct people who are willing to take the path together with you and stay loyal to each other, even in the hard times and you will start seeing and realising your worth.
kind of a paradox.. 'dont trust anyone' and. 'stay loyal to each other, even in the hard times'.
@@Stoney-Jacksman .. find the correct people to be loyal with is the key here. X
I am a citizen of my home, my village my county, my country, my continent, my world.
❤️“The earth is but one county, and mankind it’s citizens” -The Baha’i Faith
Fail ..... seriously this was a lecture not a debate . You need diversity of thought for debate .
You also need people who offer solutions to problems and not only the ablility to identify what makes them unhappy. Basically you need to be more than an obnoxious child to have a debate.
Absolutely. Everyone spoke past each other.
Diversity of thought means Islam only. Don't lie or be a hypocrite.
One of the most boring and stupidest debates ever heard. All with a posh English accent except the only woman. She is only the only one with more than one citizenship, the one who speaks at least two languages, the only whose religious experience could be different from Christianity (church bells vs. adhan).. All these persons are white, European and hardly stepped outside Europe (which includes Turkey and certainly Istanbul), all posh and educated, all urban habitants, etc. None of them has never sitten behind, f.ex. a multi-national organisation (NGOs, the UN, a global corporation, ECOWAS, Islamic Conference..). They sit behind one country of their citizenship and promote its well-being (which is fine and expected). But when your aim is not the well-being of the London-based elite, but the (global) issue of equality, democracy and peace, or any other issue? Or making profit for your corporation? Then, you have no time for nationalism, patriotism or what ever you like to call it. Moreover, why did these debaters address the stateless persons and withdrawal of citizenship (f.ex. of ex-ISIS-fighters, or on other grounds, like denial of double/multiple nationality) or laws related to the right to citizenship (f.ex. changes in British/US/EU/Australian/Japanese/German citizenship laws?) The references to the situation of India are simply total non-sense.
You're correct in saying that this was not a debate. This was a discussion. This discussion had diversity of thought. Debate implies trying to win an argument and rebut the opponent's argument. I would say that the Turkish woman and the man who claimed to be the citizen of the world were not as logical as the other two men.
Elif Shafak starts out complaining about the identity politics of nationalism being us vs them (when its more about us and not bringing in those who define themselves as not us), then brings up women and minorities at every point as if these identities have nothing to do with identity politics. This is a classic example of it's ok when we do it but not when we think you are doing it.
Nationalist thinking doesn't have numerous identities but is about the commonalities that all citizens no matter their background can all get behind that is the backbone of the nation state. The politics stays internal and thus the thems are those of other nation states who are free to practice their own forms of identity and so the them has no part in the internal politics, the nationalist doesn't want another nation state to establish within the borders of their nation state as seen with the mass immigration and the cultural enclaves that have emerged within nation states.
Any us vs them becomes defined within the commonality so that even the thems are us as there is the shared commonality, no matter what other divide exists. When the nationalist complains about the immigrant, they are not complaining about the immigrant who becomes an us even if they maintain a them division, but those that do not become an us and define themselves outside of any commonality to the point of rejection of those common interests and even worse demand that they be accommodated in their own foreign cultural interests.
Nail on the head.
The problem with that kind of thinking is the assumption that immigrants who adopt the entered country’s culture will be treated the same as someone who ‘looks’ as though they’re native.
I like your idea of the nature of how it, SHOULD work: yes when you move to another country, you abide by their laws, live by their customs and adopt some of their traditions. The issue therein is there’s a rubric of what it means to be a part of that country, in every country, among nationalists, that is ethnically divisive. And rightfully so, right? After all, the nation state is but a collection of ethnically likened people all a part of the same body.
However, when it comes to having a collectivist pluralism, (a group of culturally diverse people working together under the banner of a nation) it is belonging to each other within a nation rather than nationalism to itself that makes it work. Nationalism UNDOUBTEDLY creates and us/them argument even within the borders because it defines who and who cannot be French or American, and that divide has a tendency to be based on phenotypical genes.
I’ll use a broad stroke example of a white Floridian Trump Supporter (and self identified patriot) who says to a Texan Black American it’s Un-American/disrespectful to protest peacefully against the flag as it waves during games. Meanwhile the Black individual, who is profoundly American in their upbringing, does so because their existence in their own country has been wrought with public degradation and a systemic bias against them. To the Floridian nationalist, that Texan individual does not incorporate the values held toward the country like their own and therefore isn’t ‘truly’ American.
Worldwide and European muslims public opinion of central questions of our civilization.
s3.datawrapper.de/zucLK/
www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-morality/
www.wzb.eu/en/press-release/islamic-fundamentalism-is-widely-spread Europe centred facts. About THIRD generation muslims. Try to grasp that.
Putting a 1400 yers old book(s) over man made law in the year 2018?
S A V A G E
F F F F
U U U U
C C C C
K K K K
I I I I
N N N N
G G G G
S A V A G E S A V A G E S A V A G E
After an hour and a half of watching, I still don't know what a "global citizen" is; and I'm now convinced that Shafak and Schama don't either. They were both given multiple opportunities to explain the concept and how or why it is preferable to nation-based citizenship. Instead, they chose to enjoin the audience to sing a very bad reprise of John Lennon's "We are the World." As someone who continues to have great admiration for Schama and his work, this was truly depressing to watch.
This is the hypocrisy of the global citizens. I doubt they would be happy living in Syria or Iran or North Korea.
@@_houndead You're correct. "Citizen of the world" is an abstract concept. It's a fantasy. People who claim that they are citizen of the world are detached from reality and probably have no appreciation for the liberties in their lives. I think "citizen of the world" is a misnomer. It should be "member or person of the world. When you're a member or person of the world, you can extend that thought to member or person of the universe, without engaging in abstract concept or fantasy. Citizen implies obedience to rules, law, customs, authority, etc. of a particular region or country, and certain protection and rights are afforded to the citizen of that particular region or country.
You have no choice where you're born or who your parents are, but you do have a choice in the country you wish to live in provided that that country you wish to live in accepts you.
A person born in North Korea is going to have tremendous amount of challenge to immigrate to a western country. If he/she says that he/she is a citizen of the world and wish to live elsewhere, he/she is going to be met with brutal reality check in North Korea. Citizen of the world abstraction is probably not in his/her mindset.
They are not touching on the details of it. But I guess citizen of the world means: multiple passports, bank accounts across tax havens, clever and careful maneuvering of obligations. I am not against it, because coming from certain authoritarian big government countries, this is a better lifelihood than being stuck in one country. What I disapprove of is, people who have little interest in the world, but simply want to evade obligations, using "citizen of the world" to mask their need with a noble pursuit. They are very distinct things.
Countries and borders only exist to segregate people. A lot of "rich" countries feel they are better than the "poor" countries, thus not allowing citizens to visit such "rich" countries. It's all about discrimination and greed. People can't go where they want to go, people can't live where they want to live. Where will we end up? Each person becoming a different country? It really seems that way.
What nonsense. Ever been to London? It's absolutely swamped. How would poorer countries feel if suddenly we all went knocking at their border? It's not sustainable to accept everybody.
@@patriciasanderson2171 But you don't, do you? Point made. Everybody wants to be in a place where they can live, not just survive. And about London, there are thousands of places that have a higher population density, so it's not really a lot to complain about, is it? I lived in Asia for a couple of years, that's what you would call swamped, 30 million people in a city smaller than Birmingham.
@@hammyshayaddy8330 but if everybody swamps a place, it becomes the place they were trying to get away from. And yes it has affected London for people to live in. It's a hard city to survive in and for lots of people, it is just survival. I woukd certainly not just expect another country to just accept unlimited amount of people. It puts strain on the services, hospitals, infrastructure etc etc. And just because India is more populated doesn't mean it works.
@@patriciasanderson2171 London is great
Why do poorer countries have borders then? Actually it's exactly the opposite of what you propose! Rich countries like Britain let every illegal immigrant in and give them welfare and a wife! Try to hop the border to North Korea and you're shot dead.
But the thing is, you are showing "motivated reasoning". You want unlimited access to all the riches of Europe for no cost, free of responsibility, simply for showing up.
The lesson from Turkey is that Islam does not integrate, Constantinople was conquered, Christianity is not allowed and persecuted
So interesting to hear this from a turk
Regarding the Jewish side this had always been the Jewish question: why do they hate us?
Because the past Jews did not integrate at all, they others themselves and many times became scapegoats. Regarding their legs, Jews don't believe in nationalism unless it is Israel
David Goodhart is spot on.
OMG when the moderator started speaking I wasn’t looking at the screen and thought it was Boris
Yes I thought so too. With a tinge of a well known former actors timbre added. But your redoubtable recent Prime Minister has now gone the way of all Camerons.
My only reservation would be if there is a difference between a "Global Citizen" and a "Citizen of the World". (Also, that sometimes utopian notions are best sought out individually rather than collectively.)
Made me feel pretty uncomfortable at the beginning with the jokes he was making and the proportions of people putting their hands up to the second question, there really is a disconnected and they seemed to be making light of it and at the fact they literally have no idea what the average man or woman thinks.
Totally agree. One joke would have been fine but the 5-7 min “comedy act” of the elite vs downtrodden trope got to be tiresome and set up a poor discussion.
Well-heeled bunch, panel and audience alike. No wonder the vast majority feel as citizens of the world. Its so easy to feel big when you got the money.
Your words are spot on. I would like to see the globalists try to make a comfortable living in North Korea or in other countries, such as, Iran, Syria, Somalia, etc., and still maintain freedom in their lives as in western countries.
The most tribal people telling the rest of us not to be tribal. Ironic
how is any group more tribal than anyone else. It's basically universal. Sounds like you're just racist.
@@DjinnandTonik sounds like you're just politically correct.
At least some of them aren't telling that to the rest of the world. They weren't invited on that day, of course.
@@alexk48 that doesn't make sense
@@DjinnandTonik it makes sense to those who are not brainwashed by political correctness. BLM/CRT, KKK, MARXISTS are more tribal than groups who recognize an individuals value rights and worth over that of the collective.
Citizenship.
Is a legal status.
What is being discussed. Or attempting to discuss is identity.
We all wear so many tags as an identity.
Legal ones and cultural ones.
Legal status is what's imposed by chance that can be altered by choice.
Cultural identifiers are by chance but are always being altered with choices and by passage of time.
we grow with this identity.
Start as a baby and die
As old as possible.
Our identity changes with us.
Our legal status can often stay the same. Citizen of ______.
Oh and the world doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as planet.
It's a given we are all earthlings.
(Haven't colonized the moon n Mars yet.) ;)
Cheers and silliness.
There is no such a thing as “citizen of the world.” In the real world we live, there are nation states, a very recent creation in human history. And that’s where citizenship and citizenship rights come in. And that’s why “human rights” as defined and propagated by Western governments and international institutions are not in reality human rights, but citizenship rights.
A citizen of the world is a myth and it is perhaps applicable to very few rich individuals or owners of multinationals. There are passports, visas, financial requirements, hostility from this or that local population of an X nation-state, nationalist fervor, and many other barriers that prevents one to be a citizen of another country and enjoy at least the “human rights“ enshrined in the UN Human Rights Declaration.
In pur real political economic system, capital is a citizen of the world, for it is free to move anywhere, and in many cases, if not often, without even paying taxes. But a human being, the creator of capital, cannot be a citizen of the world.
I try not to indentify myself with something that exists outside of myself, surely not a tool we created to be able to work together in large numbers we discribe as society.
Why not include someone unemployed or reliant on a foodbank, how much would an extra chair on the panel cost for goodness sake?
I agree. It is striking that the host pointed at polls disagreeing with the panel but they didn't think to invite one to explain their views.
Celestial Teapot a lot .350 000 000 a week to be precise
debates are not for plebs
Yes, and in the bubble wrapped world of the metro-bot, the working classes voting for Brexit- not wanting a surplus of cheap throw away labour that decreases their odds of ever getting work... Is a dumb voter...!?
These middling class morons- with their high castle heads in the clouds- are obviously suffering from hypoxia, or preferably- H.A.C.E.
Stephen McDonagh: "not wanting a surplus of cheap throw away labour that decreases their odds of ever getting work"
Funny that the UK unemployment rate has fallen to 3.7%, as of 2020........compared to 11.8% in 1983.
Simon, really, actually, sort of, you know, kind of, Schama
:) so very English of him
I'm northern and working class (grew up in a toilet with an outside house) and l'm long term unemployed. I can come to London for the day, l'll need the train fare, but that's all. I'll bring some butties and a flask for dinner (what you lot call lunch).
If you're citizen of the world, you're citizen of everywhere! You would respect and engage positively with everyone and all communities regardless of race and religions and dedicated to make the world a better place bc of this global embodiment.
Being from another country, this got me with a hook. Thankfully at 40 sec's I am not alone.
Proudly a citizen of nowhere
Nice discussion
The talk was awesome. But I was really shocked to see children in the audience.
being citizen of the world means that people should have a choice to live where they wish to without being detained by immigration.
We all are the citizens of the world of money these days.
I like how this debate covers more than the title would imply.
czcams.com/video/NjX8d4WeLSk/video.html like @55:00 I never think I saw the argument premises lined up that way, it's interesting and I think it shows a solution for many of the concerns that were brought up, linked to AI etc.
czcams.com/video/NjX8d4WeLSk/video.html @1:17:48 good breakdown of that into 3 points
'If You Believe You Are a Citizen of the World, You Are A Citizen of Nowhere' - almost as idiotic as a statement I once heard on BBC R4; - "If you tie your shoe laces in a double bow it means you lack confidence"!
This 'global village' that Schama and Soros demand of us is very much a one way street, with all roads leading from poor third world countries to rich first world countries. Great if you're stuck in some sh*thole, but very little benefit to us, if any.
(I know the argument 'we need immigration because of declining populations' but no country needs immigration at the levels we are seeing in Europe, the UK and Australia (300,000 in Australia last year, and heaven knows how many in Europe and the EU).
Maybe they should apply for government offices of cities in video games, or, mods, and see if they get un-nebulized there. They will have to deal with others, but we will limit it to Turing machines, and tone to tone interaction.
I disagree with all their conclusions and assumptions.
Academics ,brainwashed minions.
So what are yours?
We live in a world so we are in a sense citizen of the world. But then you can get out of the country but you can't get the country out of you. But then academic discourse can't really solve the issue of citizenship.
“If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what citizenship means.” that's so true
I am from Kuwait and agree with the Prime Minister
We could never have a panel discussion such as this in the U S.
If you teach US children to respect the conventions of debates they might grow up able to show you how it is done
A combination of your limited freedoms in a flawed democracy.
I totally agree with this: we all need roots, we need to belong somewhere, belong to a community and belong to someone.
that's the root of evil and racism, but instead of this we can belong to this earth as one nation.
Ashutosh Upreti and who would lead this one nation?
@@Charrison9918 I guess the ones leading now too. Heil to the giant corporations! 😁
@@ashuu3 I get nothing from other countrys, i can not work there, i have no friends, i can not join most nations as a national. I am allowed to backpack and visit other countrys but im not a citizen. The proffessionals now are allowed to travel were they want but working class pepole?
The audience are not responding honestly.
Teresa May probably did not realize she was quoting Hitler.
Maybe holding these forums with some "ordinary" working class people would be better. These so called "intellectuals are a real turn off. Also the showing of hands in a large group is a very bad idea. People are sheep.
That point about the psychology of groups is interesting. Show of hands is however standard practice in debates and in order to really benefit from open discussions a measure of personal courage is needed
The word "ALL" is too simplistic; at best, use the term "MOST".
42:03
I’m not sure I recognize what he means by Residential schools in America,
If he is speaking about university the vast majority of well-to-do students will live on a university campus, I suspect that if the number skews away from that then it is either students living nearby in local apartments within short driving or even walking distance or that it is including the many students who adult learners or are working full-time whilst studying, which is to say the less economically well-off or people with families.
Though I would generally agree that universities are bastions of ideological restructuring often to the detriment of the students’ origins.
So while I think this might validate his theory that this isolates people it’s also the opposite of how he describes America.
Though I would also argue that going to university where many people are from farther away puts you into contact with more difference initially.
Though these differences do tend to blend together and become cosmetic which is what allows ideological isolation to be unaware of itself.
If everyone you know from all different origins thinks the same you must be right, except you all think the same because you’ve spent a good deal of time together despite initial differences.
Guy asks a very important question at 1:09:19. It's not some notional hypothetical question. But a very real question about the rights and freedoms of the individual, and who or what guarantees them. If you're lucky enough to live in a democratic nation state where those rights and freedoms are protected by law, you already know the answer. If you are a 'citizen of the world' you don't - Which is why Simon Schama stuttered out an answer that had absolutely nothing to do with the question.
That introduction was intelligentsia Gangsta
I like the idea of being citizen of the world
2:41 that bald man didnt appreciate the remark/joke in the least
i reserve the title of citizen for members of the type of nation formerly known as 'democracy.' the word has been hi-jacked to confuse the people of various kinds of oligarchy. one must specify 'direct democracy' now. if you wish to educate the cattle as to their status, simply point out that they have no power to direct the state, not any right to know what their masters are doing. in what sense can this situation be democracy?
You know when world citizenship really became a subject of doubt? When immigrants began blowing themselves up in European cities. Until then there were of course hardliners who sounded "nationalistic". Now this issue has dug into real flesh and the natives have a right to be restless. If a few bombings or chemical attacks every year in London, Paris and Berlin are just part of everyday life, I would at least expect this panel to address that fairly.
You are aware that *domestic* terrorism was far deadlier than the foreign terrorism of today in the 1970s and 80s, right?
That's not the subject under discussion. Europeans feel like worse is on the horizon and they want to avoid it. The migration waves of today are greater than the 70s and 80s and Europe's response to it is incompetent. Immigrants are not integrating well into our way of life and theirs is alien to us.
It's an important point to raise, as it lowers the level of fear in these discussions by adding some perspective, which is never a bad thing. Social media has vastly increased the threat level people feel from terrorism and refugees out of all proportion to what it actually is. We think the wave of Islamic immigrants is somehow worse than the threat before, and that it is a threat that will of course never end - just like people thought the Cold War would never end, or end only in global apocalypse.
The reasons there was not an immigrant wave in the 1970s and 80s are twofold:
1) Half of Europe was literally walled off from the other half, and you didn't want to live in the half that was deliberately walled off. Many of the immigrants in the current wave are not from the Middle East, but from Eastern Europe, but I suppose white Europeans are okay, right? I would argue more Middle Eastern and South Asian immigrants ARE integrating into the European way of life than not, and the ones who do not integrate get far more press. If they were so bad at integrating, you would expect cities like London and Amsterdam to be violent and chaotic instead of prosperous and safe.
2) Global warming is exacerbating conflicts in the Middle East and driving people from Syria and elsewhere into Europe. Global warming only got this bad because we refused to engage with this most international of all issues earlier, keeping our nationalist mentality when that mentality cannot respond effectively to climate change at all. So we simply deny the severity of it, or its role as a causal agent in the immigration problem.
And there is simply no going back. We can manage the flow of immigrants more carefully, but we can't stop it. If we were to stop it, we would be turning Europe into a fortress that would start to resemble a police state, with aging and in most cases declining populations and weakening economies, and also strengthen the hand of the global elites who want us to react in a fear and ignorance-based way to global challenges.
I'm writing from Hungary, the ones you speak of who were walled off from the world. We've had our days in Hell and we're just not buying this reasoning for the unavoidable obliteration of our culture and nation. "That's the way the cookie crumbles" is not acceptable after 1000 years of fighting for our lives. Please, send your message of "that's life", "tough luck" and "all the best" to the migrants, not to us. We choose to live here, not to be citizens of the world. And if the media is lying to us about the migrant situation, perhaps it's also lying about global warming and everything else it chooses to for some purpose we reject.
Right, you were on the other side of the wall, and that sucked. But that era only ended because walls came down, they didn't go up.
We've hit an impasse here because you said that the media might be lying about global warming. When people stop believing in anything because it's inconvenient - in this case, something that demands global cooperation, like global warming - and ignore the scientific evidence, then I can't continue to rationally debate with them.
When did British stop calling themselves citizens rather than subjects?
I'm okay with being a citizen of nowhere, as long as i can help people believe they belong somewhere.
The concept of "citizen of nowhere" is yak vomit. We can all have dual citizenship.
Well at least the BBC presenter was honest in his own humorous way at the beginning, when he stated that this event was a rally and thats clearly shown by the lack of any real differing thought on that stage. The only guy who made any points that were in touch with wider reality was David Goodhart of all people.
Are you a English conservative?
I am but a traditionalist conservative if i had to apply a label.
I am a citizen of "nowhere" then
I'm proud to be a citizen of nowhere. There isn't anywhere in the world that I'm compatible with, so I'm a citizen of only myself. On paper, I'm a citizen of one country, and planning to apply to be a citizen of the country I live in now, because I like it better, but I don't want to be a "member" of either of those places in any cultural sense, or any other.
@@FidesAla I understand you. I feel I can adapt anywhere I love being a global citizen but if that means I am a citizen of nowhere. Well explains why I could fit in everywhere but never felt I truly belong anywhere.
Bittersweet sad yet slightly liberating
i am a member of the human species and this is my planet
....really
Rumi's poetry is majority in Parsi , those turkish translations must be OK for her to reference it.
Anyone who is a citizen of the world,try going to it if you need help
Nationalism is not as ancient as religion but just as primitive.
Two Muslims on stage, but where's Anne Marie Waters, Tommy Robinson or Douglas Murray?
Oh who cares, you utter goon.
Robinson was probably off breaking the law, and his full time job of harassing people and engaging in racism.
Elif isn't a Muslim. She's Turkish... and also highly atheistic
Only one person was defending the moderate right. This was not a balanced debate.
If you have the fortune to have been born in the democratic republic of North Korea, than you truly belong to a very well defined and proud borders, defended by the might of national pride, till death. After that you can scale up, all the way to nowhere like Monaco or some of the most favourite 5 star islands, for the purpose of efficient accounting or meer pleasure. In North Korea borders are borders, for others always scaling up, a fast or quick inconvenience, depending on the weight of your nonexistence and absolute existence of your countries borders. I forgot about money and all that unnecessary baggage.
I like Erich Fromm writings on Nationalism
I tried to go state to state trying to fit in with locals. That wasn't very welcoming. If you attract attention, down right dangerous. Thrill kills,beatings,robberies all very common on a intrastate level I can't imagine globally. I was saved by decent people but from doing nothing wrong except a social media profile,- something I didn't share per se .For that I'm grateful. Good people. In the face of evil. Most unfortunate.
An army marches on it's stomach. Being able to 'travel' would put you in the same category as Hannibal, if nationalism means going across the alps on an elephant. I think Enoch Powel was more the sort of person who believed in being able to express yourself appropriately. You listen to him, his vocabulary, his idea on seeing a trend and a politician being able to change it. A bit of the 'white man's burden' to him. Whether Sadiq Kahn's was his nightmare, I don't know. Ghandi probably was, that was where he was based. In fact, I think he was attempting the same thing in a way that an English man would who'd spent too long in India. He was putting himself forward as a sort of pawn to be shifted about, an image to be used, a man that actually believed something. You invest your feelings in him, then they move him around. Some say terrorist, some say freedom fighter etc.
What about Australia, Singapore, or America?
If those places can't be called cosmopolitan, what does the word even mean?
Well, you have put in your list a city, a continent and a pair of continents. For sure that collection of places has to be cosmopolitan, but I am pretty sure that there is a homogeneous village somewhere in Australia
i did not like this 'debate'; i was thinking audience polled before and after; i was thinking teams with good thrust and parry,,, this was a sub par show - in my opinion
Civic nationalism > globalism > cultural nationalism > ethnic nationalism
Multiplicity of identity allows a citizen of the world to belong to more than a nation.
We all are citizen of planet earth, lets take care of it, it's our only home, whether you are a citizen of x, y or z, If you feel or believe being more representen by many cultures. great, call your self whatever suits you best. I'm sorry but we all are citizen of the world. A beautiful world with so much life. unfortunately its being run by humans that have lost total sensibility of "life". Too many talking heads having access to media.
2011 is such an old poll.
Few hindered years ago the United States felt the same nationalism that was a hindrance in reality. After the larger union it was able to become one of the most powerful country in the world. It’s 50 states enjoy freedom, fixed boarders and free economy and movement. Why this model can not be enlarged for the globe. United States went through much more pain and suffering to create this ‘world citizenship’ among its 50 than Europe is suffering .. these growing pains will go away and a beautiful reality emerge . I am certain of it.
This is all straightforward. Feeling belonging in the global world of today is not equivalent to citizenship of this world. One can be citizen only of a political community. Patriotism is a love for and feeling of belonging to a motherland. Nationalism is the union of citizenship and patriotism. Cosmopolitanism is a kind of global patriotism and appreciation for the global community of political communities. Internationalism is an appreciation for the global community of nations. Supranationalism is nationalism at a global level.
The so-called debate doesn't move beyond the definitions, and evidently, the fundamentals need to be understood before giving opinions.
Talk of populism as being inherently bigoted and demogogic is correct but this applies to all of mass democratic politics bc mass demicracy is by definition populist, serving the least common demoninator.
Considering this was held slightly B.C. (Before ¢¤v!d), and that the host was just returning from D@v0$, I gather they were basically beginning to prepare us for the shitstorm to come, and how powerless we would be if we tried to argue with it.
Statehood is necessary for freedoms, welfare and some element of localised belonging. More to the point, if you avoid nationhood and choose not to pay taxes, then the whole insurance/welfare structure diminishes. States don't merely give freedom, they also tie citizens into work contracts, mortgages, and contracts of capital ownership. So without states, you have NO economic system whatsoever, but likewise, statehood itself doesn't guarantee that you have any 'good' versions of those things too.
The idea of 'citizen of the world' is not simply a form of political identity as it is a species identity, and our species is global, while also recognising that the problems of our time are GLOBAL, and so addressing them requires some kind of aggregating of identity, resources and intellectual capacity at the global level - in other words, a sense of shared responsibility.
For this reason, I'm not one bit surprised that David Goodhart had to pivot away from this point to talking about how these 'elites' who are global somehow thought themselves morally superior to other citizens. He needs the emotional backlash to that kind of statement to hide the glaring holes in his argument that statehood is the only arena in which identity, freedom, responsibility or welfare can be negotiated.
5:10min U.N. Human Rights Charts and Nurember Codes: Self-definitions as enemies of humanity.
Oh look the bourgeoisie is pretending like they aren't the bourgeoisie.
No they aren't. The whole introduction was "we are the bourgeois, lets talk about the effects of that."
The point was mad several times was that depoliticisation basically hands power to the liberal elite and that Brexit is effect of that.
Calorus As long as you say so.
1:18
Off you goosestep.
Jobje Rabbeljee Good at least somebody gets it.
aren't we all immigrants?
Severe your roots, allow the elite to control the past and the future.
16:23min. Sure, citizen of 3 countries the UK.
Global soul, citizen of the moment..
I'm a netizen. I fight for the freedom of thought.