“National Boundaries Have Far Less Meaning Now Than They Did in the Past.” How Far Do You Agree/Disagree?
“National boundaries have far less meaning now than they did in the past.” How far do you agree/disagree?
A dividing line. This is the most fundamental definition of a boundary, but while we often take it to be a physical line in between two areas, a boundary is so much more than that. Boundaries can be anything from regional, to ethnic, to religious, to lingual.
National boundaries have defined people since the first civilizations thousands of years ago. From the Roman Empire in the BC era to Britain’s widespread colonising from the 1600s onwards, there are countless examples of how national boundaries have been breached to create empires of unbelievable size and strength. Today, land is one of the most precious resources available, and this has led to territory wars being fought between countries. However, another motive that led the Romans, the Brits and countless other nations to dominate other countries was superiority. The people of these countries believed themselves to be better than their neighbours, and so they aimed to take over what they perceived as weaker countries.
This leads me to my next point: racism. National boundaries create a deep-rooted disdain for other races, and while people today are far more accepting than they were a hundred years ago, racism is still a more imposing boundary than any security gate or immigration regulation. In fact, racism is in many cases the reason for the existence of those security gates. After so many religion-based terrorist attacks, security in most airports and at national borders has tightened beyond belief. Obviously, removal of these international checkpoints would ease travel for everyone, but the government is ultimately responsible for letting people into a country, and they always run the risk of allowing the wrong type of people to enter.
A good example of deep-rooted hatred between nations is the dislike between India and Pakistan. During the Partition years in India’s fight for
A dividing line. This is the most fundamental definition of a boundary, but while we often take it to be a physical line in between two areas, a boundary is so much more than that. Boundaries can be anything from regional, to ethnic, to religious, to lingual.
National boundaries have defined people since the first civilizations thousands of years ago. From the Roman Empire in the BC era to Britain’s widespread colonising from the 1600s onwards, there are countless examples of how national boundaries have been breached to create empires of unbelievable size and strength. Today, land is one of the most precious resources available, and this has led to territory wars being fought between countries. However, another motive that led the Romans, the Brits and countless other nations to dominate other countries was superiority. The people of these countries believed themselves to be better than their neighbours, and so they aimed to take over what they perceived as weaker countries.
This leads me to my next point: racism. National boundaries create a deep-rooted disdain for other races, and while people today are far more accepting than they were a hundred years ago, racism is still a more imposing boundary than any security gate or immigration regulation. In fact, racism is in many cases the reason for the existence of those security gates. After so many religion-based terrorist attacks, security in most airports and at national borders has tightened beyond belief. Obviously, removal of these international checkpoints would ease travel for everyone, but the government is ultimately responsible for letting people into a country, and they always run the risk of allowing the wrong type of people to enter.
A good example of deep-rooted hatred between nations is the dislike between India and Pakistan. During the Partition years in India’s fight for