I guess I don’t have to comment or interpret these words, everyone and his cat know where it comes from. Let’s all pray for the New World Order where nations, prejudices, religions etc. are eliminated, the lion lies down with the lamb and happy vegan children apologize to carrot or cabbage before partaking of its holy body.
And here comes Gary Younge, the Guardian’s editor-at-large*, with this poignant illustration of his revolutionary idea:
It is a very long and somewhat rambling essay, but the gist could be best conveyed by this quote:
The map of my utopian world has no borders. I believe in the free movement of people. As a principle, I think we should all be able to roam the planet and live, love and create where we wish. I could squander the rest of this column parrying caveats and concerns regarding everything from security to wages.
Of course, this article being one of the so called “peak Guardian” products, the author avoided going into such small and insignificant details as “caveats and concerns regarding everything from security to wages”. Probably one of the perks of being an editor-at-large. Instead he laid out a highly emotional and thus persuasive recipe for a dream.
On a personal note: I have always have been a sucker for the Utopia. Not only does Gary Younge’s proposal resonate quite strongly within my shriveled heart, so does The Communist Manifesto and (especially) the Constitution of the Soviet Union – an unparalleled example of social engineering. Well, at least on paper. The sad fact that the jackbooted “more equal” goons carrying the red Party cards trampled that constitution into dirt, blood and excreta is somewhat different.
Meanwhile I keep asking myself why did Gary Younge choose the subject of the free borders right now. Because:
The Brexit is only the first, more dramatic, step on the almost assured way of disintegration of that powerhouse of enlightenment called European Union. Other members, like French, Dutch, Czechs, Italians and others, are watching on the sidelines, weighing pros and cons.
But there are more troubling signs of further division, based on ethnicity, that should be of even more concern. Of course, Catalonia is the most recent example of a secession attempt that borders on becoming bloody, but Europe knows several others, such as the late Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Soviet Union, of course, etc. And the future doesn’t bode well for the grand idea of a borderless Europe (to start with). The Scots are not exactly letting go of their thirst for independence, while the Irish are flabbergasted by the idea of a border springing up between them and their northern neighbor. The Northern Italy wouldn’t mind having a go at their own country and Bavaria isn’t far behind. And nothing will make Flemish and Walloons happier than Belgium split in two… I guess that the Basques, heartened by the Catalonian example, might restart their own saga again, with the usual bloody results.
United States are also showing signs of disunity. And I am not referring to the powerful drive of the identity politics that is threatening to split the nation into about 300 millions separate entities. Rather to the several states, like California, Texas and a few others, raising the issue of secession from time to time.
Canada, with their Mouvement souverainiste du Québec…
But of course, it is not only ethnic issues that facilitate the separatism. Religions are quite busy, doing their thing. Asian countries, including such similarly impervious behemoths like China and India, do have their problems as well: the former with Xinjiang province, with its Uyghur population and the latter with their Muslims in general and Kashmir in particular.
And the smaller countries, such as Thailand, Myanmar, Philippines and others, are struggling with the issues of their minorities’ separatist dreams. No one is immune.
And, when it comes to Africa, where both religious and tribal conflicts come together, any words will be superfluous. The blood is flowing too freely for words.
So what is the reason for publishing the dreamy and not very coherent article in the midst of the upheaval that, instead of getting rid of existing borders, keeps adding more and more new ones?
Virtue signalling? Daytime dreaming for fame and money?
Just being a Guardianista?
You tell me.
(*) I went for Wiki with this term:
An editor-at-large is a journalist who contributes content to a publication. Sometimes such an editor is called a roving reporter or roving editor.
Unlike an editor who works on a publication from day to day and is hands-on, an editor-at-large contributes content also on a semi-regular basis and has less of a say in matters such as layout, pictures or the publication’s direction.
Rather disappointing, I was hoping for something more swashbuckling.