Musings on Nationhood

What is the soul of a country? Its people? Its culture? Its history? Its accomplishments?

How do you measure the contribution of a country or nation peopled by diverse individuals who, even as a group, can't be lumped into one huge monolithic stereotype of nationhood?

And what is more important for a Nation - its contribution to the betterment of the plight of its people, or its contribution to the worldwide community of nations to which it belongs?

What truly governs a nation - the needs of the majority of those that rely on its protection and power? Or a collection of the chosen few with the money, connections, and clout who represent, ostensibly, the needs of the nameless, faceless masses on whose backs he/she stands?

Pedestals are precarious places to stand on. One small step in any direction and you are likely to fall off altogether.

If I were a nation, would I prefer to be known as the one who enriched the world with art, music, literature and dance? Or would I prefer to have the reputation as the "strong one", the "tough one", the "top of the food chain"? Would i prefer to have a poorer per capita income, but a healthier populace, both in body and spirit? Or would I prefer to make my focus entirely financial, regardless of the effects pursuing profit may have on my citizens?

How does a nation's personality develop? Are the leaders, who represent the epitome of Nationhood, the ones who create images and impressions that become known as personality traits of Nationals from that locale? Is it a perception fostered and bandied about by the community of nations in the world which makes a nation stereotyped as being a certain way? Can one international incident create such a strong perception as to change the way the world treats with said nation?

Do nations have rights as an entity? does one nation, notwithstanding the desires and needs of its citizens, have the right as a monolithic entitiy to impose ideas, ideals or beliefs on other nations? to not play nicely with others in the sandbox? to forcefully take what it feels it wants, or pressure another nation to give up something it holds dear on a whim? would that nation then have the right to object, resist or fight back?

and who would monitor and police all these altercations should they occur on a playing field as large as the world itself? who governs such interactions?

does size matter? Can a small nation not make as large an impact on world affairs? Do large nations have the responsibility to look after and care for the smaller nations? do smaller nations deserve assistance from other nations, or should they just be absorbed into larger entities?

What role should people, individuals, ordinary citizens, play in the steering of a nation? do ordinary people need to know alot about politics, economics and diplomacy to have valid concerns, opinions and feedback for their governments? wouldnt it be snotty of governments to turn around and ignore its populace because they are ignorant of the science of politics? who in fact would they be serving at that point? In fact, who would the Nation itself be serving if it ignored the requests, thoughts and concers of its people?

Nations, people, empires - they all rise and fall. History is the great equalizer. and although it is written by the victors, the pattern of history since time, is that it is entirely cyclical. Everything is interconnected. the rise of one power creates a sentiment that in 40 years, after incubating under a regime of terror or pain, explodes fully formed in a fiery birth of revolution to establish a new regime... which over time becomes corrupted until a new regime rises, yet again, under the leadership once again, of a tyrant.

But what is the soul of a country? Where does its spirit lie?

I do not know. But I would not want to be the nation which is known as being "soulless"