destroy the special national character characteristics.
characteristics.
So Christine has cited national
identity, shared culture, shared
ethnicity as what makes countries
distinctive, what holds them together
and that's a reason to defend borders
and to enforce borders. Now, Simon,
earlier on, Simon in the UK, you argued
against the moral significance of
national borders. Let's see if we can
put Simon and Christine together on the
screen. Speak directly to Christine and
in Athens and see if you can persuade
her. Well, I I'd say Christine that in
in Britain here, we're we're often cited
by politicians about British values, but
any kind of national identity, if it
doesn't contain compassion for all and
openness to all, the identity, the brand
has no credibility whatsoever. The very
idea of a national identity is
oxymoronic. It needs to include all
otherwise it's simply not credible in
the globalized world in which we live.
You think there is no such thing as a
national identity. I I I think that it's
the only credible national identity is
one that that opens its arms to to
others that doesn't see itself as
privileged or entitled in any way or or
or sees others as less worthy of of
being on this earth than the rest of us.
I wonder if I could hear from someone
here who defends the idea of restricting
immigration for the sake of national
identity who can articulate what he or
she takes to be the idealism of that position
position
in Greece. Angeliki
uh I would like to underline this which
uh I think escapes
uh escapes us all without being
specific. There are certain religions
which are which are disguised
uh political movements. Okay. They
provide no education to their people.
They oppress especially females uh in
their countries. They brainwash their
citizens. Okay. And all these people,
okay? They want to invade
um and uh if you want corrupt uh
uh
uh civilized countries with uh their own identity.
identity.
So you do think so you do think that I
that preserving national identity is
it's very important.
We've had a lot of comments coming in
from those who are watching online.
Let's turn to Dave at the BBC. What are
they saying? We had a comment from Ying
in the Hay who says that preserving
national identity is the reason racists
give for restricting immigration. There
have been many comments about the pace
of change. Beth from India says there's
a huge difference between a gradual
change to identity over 50 years and an
enormous change which takes place in a
short period with a big burst of
immigration. And Alia says that we
should remember that melting a national
identity with newer arrivals can
actually enrich an identity.
Thank you for that. In Israel, you did.
What do you
what do you say?
I think Simon was presenting this this
one criteria for uh for being a
legitimate uh you know national
identity. I think that that some people
want to strive to have a sense of
connection to culture of heritage of
family. So to come and say that it's
only legitimate to have a national
identity which is all inclusive and
encompasses all citizens of the world, I
think it's ignoring the very fundamental
fact as a human being that we do connect
to things that are similar to us on an
emotional level. At least this is not a
purely logical argument. So you have to
not disregard the emotional connection
people have to things that are similar
to them.
You disagree with Simon and with Lena
that we should transcend these differences.
differences.
Yeah. I wouldn't say I complet I I
wouldn't say I completely disagree. I
would say that you cannot disregard the
fact that people strive to feel
connected to something. It's not only a
universal world. That's part of it. But
it's also a sense that people want to
feel connected and you can't completely
disregard that. Like why is that any
different than just wanting to be part
of everything?
Lena in Germany. Lena, what do you say?
Um why does it have to be nation? Why
can't it be the fact that we all have
stripey t-shirts or that we like to eat
cheese? You know what I mean? Or we
But you're being cynical towards it. No,
Lena, but you're being cynical towards
it. It's not it's not stripey t-shirts.
A person has a culture and heritage.
It's not something that's just a
t-shirt. You're just you're responding
in a very cynical manner. Some people
have connections. We have attachments to
things that are like us, not for just,
you know, no no sensible reason. Go ahead.
ahead.
First of all, I've got four grandparents
from four countries. So, which of these
countries am I supposed to identify
myself with? I don't know. That's what I
mean by stripy t-shirts. For me, it's
not about a country. It's about the fact
that I feel strongly about, let's say,
feminism. So, yeah, I'm connected with
feminists across the world. I feel
strongly about children. So, I like
people who like children. It doesn't
have to be people who also happen to
have a German passport. Another point
that I think is very important is we
mustn't forget that nationalism
and religion and culture and all these
things have been used time and again as
a reason to discriminate people to kill
people. Germany not so long ago said you
know what you group of religious people
no longer part of our country. You're
not citizens anymore as a reason to
think we were then allowed to do
whatever with them. So, I just think
there's a massive risk to creating these
kind of us and them ideas. Uh, and and I
don't care if it's stripey t-shirt or
religion or race or whatever. I just think
think
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Go ahead, Yita. Finish your thought.
Lena, I just think that essentially we
don't really disagree. I think that it's
a legitimate idea to want to be a
citizen of the world, but it's also a
legitimate idea to want to be a citizen
of my city, of my hometown. And to find
that balance between between nationalism
on a global scale and nationalism on an
urban scale, for instance,
is not a disagreement, but you have to
be able to accept both ideas.
All right, I want to try to
think Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,
wait, wait. I there there are a lot of
people who are diving in at once. I am
in the UK. You are a sim Syrian
immigrant to the UK. Is that right? Tell
us what you've learned from your
experience. Yeah. Yeah. About the debate
we've been having.
First of all, I would like to ask
everyone say that the government should
say no for the immigrants. Can you
imagine your living in a city of GS?
Imagine the diseases or illnesses
surrounding you and your
can you imagine having a child in need
of urgent medical care. This is how
hundred of the people especially the
Syrians are being made to experience
every day. I think the countries don't
have the right to say not for the
refugees. when we say about the
humanitary rights the countries don't
have the right to say no at some time
the people who is saying that refugees
will be like not a good people I am
disagree with this uh with this say why
because now I have been in the UK one
year now I am studying I am volunteer
with four organization one of them is
national complete our study for a safe
life for our children not just for to
found a simple life for us.
Well, thank you for joining us. You
broke up a little bit there. I know
there are others with things to
contribute, but let me see if I can draw
together some of the strands of the
discussion that we've
heard here today
and to see how it all connects to the
debates that are raging in countries
around the world about the question of
immigration. On the surface, the debates
about immigration seem to be about
economics, about the effect of
immigration on jobs, on wages, on
welfare benefits, on standards of living.
living.
But it seems to me that the reason the
immigration debate generates such
heat and passion and anger and anxiety
is that this debate touches on deeper,
bigger questions than economics alone.
Questions like, what do we owe one
another as citizens?
Do we owe more to our fellow citizens
than we owe to humanity as such?
Should I, as an American, care more
about the welfare of someone, let's say,
in Texas whom I've never met, than I
should care about someone living in
Mexico, just about the across the border
or not?
And then there's the question of
patriotism which underlies much of this debate.
debate.
Is patriotism a virtue or is it a kind
of prejudice?
Back in the 18th century, Jean Jacqu Rouso
Rouso
wrote powerfully in defense of patriotism
patriotism
and particularity. He said, "It seems
that the sentiment of humanity
evaporates and weakens in being extended
over the entire world and that we cannot
be affected by the calamities in Tartery
or in Japan the way we are by those of a
European people." Rouso thought that we
can't be affected by calamities half a
world away.
But what happens
when we can witness
those calamities
almost from the moment they happen? What
happens when we can discuss and debate
the appropriate response to those calamities
calamities
with people from around the world in a
conversation like this?
When we can do that,
could it be that the line between
members and strangers
will begin to blur? Well, it's hard to
know. This technology and the
discussions it makes possible
are really just at their infancy.
But I think it is fair to say that this
discussion offers us a glimpse of what
reasoned global public discourse might
be. And so to our participants from
around the world, to those listening on
radio, to those watching online, I want
to thank you for joining us for this the
first episode of the global philosopher.
Thank you
Thank you. [Music]
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
Chrome Extension