Are nations real or imaginary?
When I was in the lower grades of elementary school, we learned about “The Eight Parts of Speech”. The first and most important among them is the noun. They taught us that nouns are divided into beings, things, and phenomena. Examples of beings are man and dog, things are pen and phone, and the phenomena are of rain and snow. Most children understood the difference between proper and common nouns and knew that “India”, “Ana”, and “John” are capitalized in Croatian and that they are proper nouns. John is a being, and so is Ana. What is India? Most students knew to classify the word "state" into nouns, but some did not know which noun it was: a being, a thing, or a phenomenon?
Now, after 10 years, after countless grammar rules, forced reading, learning English and Italian, a couple of years of learning Latin… It is clear that some things are simplified to children for a reason, and through later education, upgraded.
So, the definition for work, W = F * s, seems easy, but it is a simplified version and does not apply to all cases. At the college, we realize that something like this is “more correct”:
History, if taught briefly, is also never 100% accurate. If we assume that the truth was written down, only by analyzing all the texts and relations in the society of that time, we will gain a better picture of reality. Even if the teacher tells the children that the child’s appearance depends on mom and dad, she is not completely right, because it actually depends on their grandparents.
After all this, we realize that the classification into beings, things, and phenomena from the 2nd grade of primary school is actually a shortened version. We understand that there are also social phenomena, concrete and abstract nouns, etc. The word “state” is, in fact, a phenomenon, an imaginary phenomenon, unlike a tsunami or wind, that are real. The word “state” is an idea. The coat of arms which we could see above the blackboard in the classroom is “less real” than the picture of Josip Broz Tito seen by students in the same classroom 50 years ago or the picture of Mao Zedong seen by their peers in China.
This sentence about an “unreal” state could offend any other patriot, especially if some communist dictator is more real than the state. But it really is. But it is necessary to understand that this does not mean that he is better. On the contrary, it is certain that any state is better than the two mentioned dictators. It is better because the state doesn’t hate, but doesn’t love either. Its heterogeneity is what makes it so. You can often hear from aggressive and angry Turks that they hate Greece and every Greek, or that Serbs hate Croats and vice versa. These xenophobic feelings must have a cause. Their conflicts happened far back in history, one of the main "causes" is a retold story - hate that passes from ancestors to posterity. Those who "devised the story" also had a reason for it, but because of hate, they could not divide the aggressor from the state of the aggressor, so they accused the whole nation. But a state never took a rifle and fired. She has no limbs. No brain. Nor physical form at all, because it is just an organization of an enormous number of people, and because of the number of people we can conclude that there is no possibility that everyone is the same and "evil".
The state has no physical form, although it has its mountains, valleys, rivers... Both mountains and valleys were there and will be there, independent of the state.
When we say that a word is abstract or physically unreal, it does not necessarily mean that it is bad or less valuable. Money is abstract, for example. Although in our head we can imagine touching colored paper or a metal coin, it is actually just paper and ink, and some metal alloy. Money is an imaginary thing that people believe in and use. Now, it is in the form of paper, in history was in the form of gold coins and in prehistory was in the form of shells.
The family is also abstract. The difference between family and state is obvious. Even if you love your fatherland, you probably love your father even more.
Indeed, with the help of a DNA test, you can determine who your father is, but the test cannot determine your nationality. Not even that genetic part, if we do not look at nationality through culture, but exclusively through genetics. Traditionalists like divisions depending on origin. They love the notion of blood ties with the state. American blood, French blood… Blood that flows exclusively in the veins of a person of a certain nationality. Sometimes we can also hear conspiracy theorists talking about enemies creating a virus that recognizes a person’s nationality, and kills people of a certain nationality. This is impossible. The state has no basis in biological phenomena. Probably the human genome from southern Africa is different from that from northern Europe, but nothing more than that. There is no chance that according to the DNA test we can distinguish a Russian person from a Ukrainian, a Serb from a Bosnian. Does that mean that Ukrainians are actually Russians, that Bosnians are Serbs or vice versa? Of course not. People depend on social things like culture or language. The state is just an association of similar people.
Association. Selected randomly. You can be proud of it, but there is no reason to be proud of the association just because it is “your” association. We can be proud of the works of our association: the defended houses, the built bridge, saved child… Each letter I type is also imaginary, and just a strange line in case no one knows its meaning, and the fact that almost everyone knows the meaning of letters is another success of the bigger association - humanity. Humanity may stop existing one day, but will exist longer than every state. I want to be a part of humanity that protects private property, human rights and freedoms. The humanity that understands that almost everyone is happier when they can use their native language and when their tradition is respected. Humanities whose states will look at each other as administrative units of the world, not as enemies or occupiers. Humanity where the word “private” will not mean “greedy”. Where the state will allow every man to develop himself and his ideas, and give freedom to act and produce things without government pressure. Where states will not steal and ban, but encourage people to improve the world with their ideas. Whose market will be free and whose people will trade freely, and wars will not exist because people will understand that it doesn’t matter which side of the imaginary line you are on, and people on that side of the line will accept you and will not condemn you because "you belong to others".