The Goal Is To Not Have Civilization Clash But To Have Civilization Struggle

Since ancient time, most parts of the world (whatever form a country has taken to govern the population) have had to contend with the central (very top level) all the way down to the local (very bottom level) governments.  In the ancient world, some parts of the world were experienced democracy, but most parts of the world were experienced hierarchy sorts of governance.  To further breaking down the atom, some ancient parts of the world were experienced class struggles much more than most parts of the ancient world.  With the look into the past and until now, the contemporary governance images of our world, we can safely assume that even though the central government of a country does hold a lot of power, but usually the local governments are more creative in supporting the local population.

Whether a country’s governmental system is democracy or communism or whatever, a country has had to deal with a strong central government and the uncooperative local governments.  Breaking down the atom at the level of inner working details between the central and the local governments can be complicated, and so I’m not going to even try in this blog post.  Nonetheless, in a layman conception, we can safely assume that if the central government is too weak, the local governments can be divided throughout the country, and the whole country can be on the verge of civil war or worse.  If the local governments are too weak, certain local populations will feel as if the local governments are corrupted and not serving the local populations’ interests, because the central government has always been controlled by larger group of interests and opinionated power driven politicians.  I think the balance must be met in a scale of strong central government and productive local governments.  Nonetheless, you cannot have a weak central government, because a country with weak central government may become so divisive to a point of splitting a country into warlordism (i.e., local governments are at war).

We cannot run away from corruptions no matter what form of governance system is taking on by a country, because corruption is inherently built into human nature.  Thus, we cannot use the argument of strong central government will lead to more corruption.  Instead, we must look at how to relax some unhelpful regulations and how to build up some helpful regulations to a balance that can regulate and weed out corruptions effectively.  Trial and error approach is the approach that a progressive country should take.  Once a country thinks it’s already too developed, it is probably already too corrupted and growth stagnated.  Ongoing reform must always be at the forefront of the conversation and practice for a governmental system to stay in synch with the populations’ demands.

Anyhow, we have seen from the ancient world till now that the struggle of creating the right balance for the central government and the local governments to work as a whole country is real.  Thus we can argue that if we are going to make the struggle for this balancing act to be even more complicated, we are going to face a much tougher time in making it right.  This means some parts of the contemporary world that are trying to merge government systems together without any consideration for local populations’ cultures will have a harder time in creating a right balance in governance.  Instead of creating the right balance for governance, these multiple governance mixed parts of the world may eventually experience wars and chaos, because the differences of native, local cultures are too different to reconcile (e.g., class, economy, ideal, belief, tradition, etc…) .

Humans are not robots, thus native, local cultures can never be eradicated.  With emotions and free thoughts, human nature tends to form local cultures that represent the local peoples.  Although there are exceptions such as for greater good, mostly people tend to think in local culture and local flavors.  For an example, the majority peoples would think what is best for the family first, then the rest would come after naturally.  Breaking down the atom even more, besides the exceptions to the rule such as the greater good of parents, each human tends to think selfishly, and so each of us tends to thrive on individuality.  So, even in the smallest unit of humanity, we are going to see the struggle of balance between the central and local centers.  Within each of us, we want the central center of a family to be strong and prosperous, but we also want the local center that speaks individuality to be strong and prosperous.  Thus, we must seek out the right balance of the centers.

I think human cultures are there to make us human, thus to destroy cultures with force will yield chaos.  Human cultures should be changed from within and not to be forced and shaped by the external demands unless the local population demands to be shaped by the external factors.  If the border of a country isn’t clearly drawn on the map or clearly dictated to the population, I think the balance of the central and the local centers are going to be a lot more complicated… may destroy a civilization and create extremisms such as genocide.

Of course, one can argue that humans should work together, thus all borders should be crossed.  I think this argument is somewhat flaw.  Of course, humans should work together, but all borders should not be crossed.  Instead of having all borders to be eliminated, we should focus on having some borders to be compromised in truces and agreements!  This means we should focus on civilization struggle and do away with civilization clash.  Civilization struggle is where each nation tries to defend its own border and make compromises for advancing the local populations’ interests.  Civilization clash is where each nation tries to eradicate its enemies at all cost (i.e., genocidal behavior).

In short, I think the central government should be strong and stay slim in a way that allow local governments to breathe and govern with local distinct flavors — all in all, to allow a nation to be strong to a point that a nation’s culture should not be eradicated (i.e., border should be clear on the map and in world economy).  The goal is to not have civilization clash but to have civilization struggle.  We cannot do away with the struggle part, because to be human is to struggle!  Nonetheless, we should do away with the clash part, because it’s a genocidal behavior.

Each of us human is unique and precious, thus genocide is the opposite of humanity as it tends to try to eradicate the unique, precious parts of humanity.  In my opinion, struggle is to reform and to stay in synch with time; to become more progressive.  Clash is to be genocidal, and we should do away with genocidal behaviors at all cost.  Say no to all forms of genocide!  Say yes to reform struggles!  This means we should say no to the genocide of cultures also!  Each culture is different and unique and may provide different insight into humanity, and we should not allow a genocide to wipe out a culture.  The world is much more colorful when we have the struggles of cultures.  The world is much more evil and sad and genocidal when we have the clashes of cultures!

Advertisements

Chicken And Egg Theory Marches On!

When an egg decides to hatch a chick, an egg must have wondering who’d hatched it.  When we human beings came to being, we probably had wondered countless time who hatched us, right?  Furthermore, we probably had wondered about the purposes of all the wonders on this earth and within this universe.  For an example, we must have thought hard about the perfect marriage of male and female of all types of beings.  Furthermore, when there is day, night must follow soon.  Furthermore, these creations are for whom to enjoy?

With the chicken and egg curiosity, groups of different society within human population decided to form their own religions to explain the universe and all of its secrets.  Then science came to prominent, and it was too intended that it was a more proper way of approaching the chicken and egg curiosity.  Still, so far there is yet a satisfactory explanation to this chicken and egg question of our universe.  Whenever a specific religion or science tries to explain the chicken and egg curiosity, a complete satisfactory explanation isn’t really realized.

For an example, if a religion said that their God had created this universe, then we must have to wonder who had created God?  If a science said that Big Bang had created this universe, then we must have to wonder who had created Big Bang?  This curiosity seems like a question that cannot be answered clearly, because the chicken and egg theory can go into an infinity.  Furthermore, we have to wonder, if there is night, then there is day…  if there is infinity, then there is a limitation.  So, I guess if we are to be clever, we must have wondered the chicken and egg curiosity must have a finite explanation.

Still, I have to wonder, can an infinity gives birth to a finite existence, and then a finite existence would in turn giving birth to an infinity?  Otherwise, how can we explain what had given birth to an infinity?  Thus, the chicken and egg curiosity marches on!

Could You Be Truly Free? (Poem by Vinh Nguyen)

Just another poem I’d written thus far.  Enjoy!!!

Could you be truly free,
on the first day you born,
they called you a cute baby?

Could you be truly free,
while you spread your wings and flew,
knowing not a wing could break away?

Could you be truly free,
away from society, hiding in the wild,
knowing a hunter could become a prey?

Could you be truly free,
at the highest peak, nobody could reach,
yet you could not reach anybody?

Could you be truly free,
caring not for hearsay,
under the sun, hearsay found you?

Could you be truly free,
caring not for money,
free you thought, starving to death?

Could you be truly free,
as you turned away from love,
through loneliness, you became you?

Could you be truly free,
vices you had none,
but you could not deny you’re perfect?

Could you be truly free,
even in death you thought you could,
but could you tell me how free you were?