On the other hand...there's an interesting interaction, in some
cases, between people's loyalty to a particular religion or
language and their loyalty to a country. This shows up, for
example, in people pressuring their governments to pass
certain laws for reasons that are essentially religious: so long
as they work within their own legal structures (such as writing
to their Senators, or voting based on candidates' positions on
that issue), they're clearly working as citizens of that state,
but they're also working as Xists.
Vicki, thinking out loud
rosenzweig@acm.org
----------
From: owner-virus
To: virus
Subject: Re: virus: Re: Virus: Sociological Change
Date: Friday, December 13, 1996 10:19AM
Vicki Rosenzweig <rosenzweig@hq.acm.org> wrote:
> a society need not map onto a particular territory. I'm not
> thinking of cyberspace or subcultures here. I'm thinking
> of cultures that define themselves by the people, language,
> and customs rather than by location. Nomadic peoples are
> an obvious example: the Bedouin are sometimes referred
> to as "stateless Arabs" because they don't limit themselves
> to the territory of any one nation.
Problem is, that although they are the same people, with their own
culture, they live within the territorial states of other nations.
Due to the very definition of the state, this automatically makes
them subject to that state's laws. In effect, the sovereignty of their
nomadic "state" is being infriniged. This can cause conflict,
for example the Kurds in the middle-east. For territoryless states to
work, *all* states must first be dissolved, and then rebuilt from
scratch.
Drakir
------------
Richard Jones
jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com
------------
"We are the New Breed,
We are the Future."
------------