While I understand the attraction, I have never been a fan of nationalism or sovereign states for that matter. I get also understand why they exist as they do, but attaching oneself to some imaginary lines on a map, seems precarious. And as centralised states go, history gives a very clear indication on what happens to all of them.
They all fail.
The reason they fail might seem very diverse, but it is probably not the case. Essentially, they all fail because they take their position for granted, they become entitled, and they believe themselves too big to fail, so they overreach with their powers, become corrupt, and eventually collapse under their own hubris. And one of the main reasons they end up doing this, is because as they grow in power, they start to treat "non-citizens" as second class, or worse. And eventually, this breaks down the system, creating factions and enemies, that organise themselves and rebel.
It is also interesting because every nation on earth, is made of immigrants. The only thing that is different among them is the timeline of when the migrations happened. For instance, the Australian Aboriginals who have been in Australia for around 50,000 years, very likely originated from Southeast Asia, migrating to Australia themselves. The Native Americans likely originated from Asia also, walking across between Russia and the US where they used to meet in Alaska.
Why does the timing matter so much in terms of migration? The US was formed through mass migration from Europe and mass slavery from Africa and Asia for a few hundred years until relatively recently. Why is 400 years ago different than if it happened 12,000 years ago? Perhaps it is not, but it is only visible as the same in hindsight - when there are enough years and generations under the belt.
However, we don't have that kind of time, which is why the nations we have seem like they have been there for a long time, and it is justified that we should identify ourselves with them, even if there are quite a few countries that have been formed within living memory, like Pakistan, Israel, or the Republic of Italy.
Yet still, migration always causes problems, because there are going to be encroachments on space that one group believes is theirs, and changes in cultures where many people will be affected in numerous ways. We don't like change, which also means we don't like different. Academia might argue against this, but reality of human nature tells a more accurate story. If we feel that "our group" is being replaced, we probably get resentful. I find this silly in many respects, due to to the arbitrary traits of what makes a group ours.
A group of people are a group based on the colour of skin, flavour of religion, sexual orientation or a million other classifiers. However, are these broad-brush identifiers good buckets to actually identify with? Do we really want to identify ourselves as similar to everyone else in our skin colour group? Are we the same kinds of people as everyone who is heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or one of the other letters or symbols?
Do you define yourself this way?
What can be pretty much guaranteed however, is that the nations of today are unlikely to be the same in a few hundred years from now. Save us annihilating ourselves or experiencing an extinction event like a large asteroid hitting earth before this, the lines on the maps will change and likely, so will the entire governance structure we know today. Many believe that a fight for democracy is the way to go, but democracy is not actually a very good system, is it? It might be "the best" out of the accepted few right now, but it is unlikely to hold up for very long as we learn more, and AI describes multiple better systems we are incapable of comprehending yet.
And, I think that this is what we are fighting for at the moment. Yes, in a practical sense it seems to be over land, or resources, or some kind of history of "ownership" because of some migration patterns of humans at some time in the past - but at the core it is more about what system is the best to adhere to. There are several models in the world today, from the more liberal, to dictatorships and strict religious code. But, none of them work well enough that they will survive unchanged.
I believe that most average people would prefer a more liberal structure, where there are civil liberties and freedoms, with some kind of structure to keep innovation and opportunity flowing. That is not any of the centralised governments of today though, as while some are more liberal than others, they are all corrupt and abusive with their powers to some degree.
None of them will last.
Which is interesting to consider, when enumerating how much time and effort and energy is put into fighting for and against the people in these very broken systems. Especially since none of those people can fix the system, because they are products of it, and benefit from it. We want a better system, but we are depending on the wrong people to deliver it. It is liking needing a car engine repaired, and taking it to the dentist - they don't have the right knowledge, skills, or tools.
Though, maybe it is better than having a mechanic do a root canal.
Anyway, this is just a bit of a rambling reflection on how we get attached to arbitrary and transient conditions, as if they are important and are not going to ever change. As the Buddha said,
Attachment is the root of all suffering.
Maybe to be human is to get attached to some things, which if true then raises the question:
What are we willing to suffer for?
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Sadly the number of people who agree that this is a broken system is so small. Meanwhile you have everyone else taking a side proving just how broken the system is. They are contributing to the problem while vehemently denying it.
It seems to happen in every domain these days. Lots of arguing, little positive action.
These world is meant for all living creatures, no boundaries. However, human greed set line to separate there domain from other.
For the governance, base on history when the religion govern, they called it the black ages (religion is the worst in my opinion) killings of non-beleiver from both side is not condemned.
For dictatorships on the other hand, look China and Russia today. They have this government, there is progress for the one who dictate (government) while suffering for it's people (slave).
And for democracies, yes it is the best there is, not a flawless but still we have some fake freedom in it.
In my opinion, human greed of powers makes us the worst creatures. Hear this; animals and nature lives in perfect harmony. Animal takes only what it need to survive. While us humans, we take everything what we seen we want it all. We destroys everything on our path to fulfill our greed.
Can there be fake freedom? There can be naivety :) I think there are better ways to govern than through what we are using now, though it is going to require changes at the foundation level of our culture.
Hope one day, in some mysterious way somebody will implement it.
I think humans just have an inherent need to pick a side and divide the world into people in our camp vs people in opposing camp. If you are not with us you are against us...
I think this is the case and because we can do it at large scale, the damage it does is large as well. Our stupidity used to be localised, now it is global.
The current order is completely shaped as the rich want. All state resources, all laws, and rules are in their favor. Is this the right thing to do? I don't think so. In the coming years, with the development of technology, this difference will completely disappear.
When we choose the rich to govern us, what else can be expected?
The reference to Asians being brought to the Colonies and the US escapes me.
You might find this interesting https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/how-many-slaves-landed-in-the-us/
From the article:
"And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That’s right: a tiny percentage."
~3.7%
Slavery of course is an abomination, and so that was 388,000 too many (along with there descendants) even where I live in the rural Southern United State only a small fraction of the citizens owned slaves.
I have some separate thoughts on Nationalism but wanted to let them properly develop.
Tangentially and bizarrely one of the largest slave owners in North Carolina was himself a former slave - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carruthers_Stanly
How is that? In the 1800s, there were apparently about half a million Indian and a quarter million Chinese slaves taken to the US. The East India Company held around about 1.2 million Indian slaves - that company was also delivering tea to Boston ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_India
I'm trying to find accurate counts the Chinese started coming around 1834 with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. California's Constitution of 1849 explicitly barred slavery. There's no doubt they weren't treated well but the number of enslaved seems to be low.
Indian (Asian) Slaves appear to have been more common but not as numerous as African slaves in Colonial America, digging into it looks more confined to the pre-Revolutionary period.
true. humans like to put labels or ppl into categories.. i think its more appropriate to group ppl according to their passions/interests.. like hivers or stackers..
🤔😎🤙
Depends on the interests I guess :)
Discord Server.This post has been manually curated by @steemflow from Indiaunited community. Join us on our
Do you know that you can earn a passive income by delegating to @indiaunited. We share more than 100 % of the curation rewards with the delegators in the form of IUC tokens. HP delegators and IUC token holders also get upto 20% additional vote weight.
Here are some handy links for delegations: 100HP, 250HP, 500HP, 1000HP.
100% of the rewards from this comment goes to the curator for their manual curation efforts. Please encourage the curator @steemflow by upvoting this comment and support the community by voting the posts made by @indiaunited.
I think of it in the micro sense. We live most of our lives with our spouse and children. There is a certain way we do things at home. We can tolerate visitors for short visits. But the longer they stay, the more the differences in how they live start to gnaw at you. We can teach our children to conduct themselves in the way we think is correct. But we would take pause in telling guests how they should live. They may respect our boundaries for a while before taking liberties.
On that note, some guests who take too many liberties in our homes tend to not be invited to stay again.
If you scale this out, immigration is not the problem. The problem stems from the differences that cause friction in the conventions a community follows.
One anecdotal example. I live on the border with Mexico. There are some things that Mexican drivers do that are bothersome to local drivers. For example, they tend to drive slower (which I think is a result of living with the metric system 😜). They also tend to disregard turning lanes or make sudden or awkward lane changes that could result in accidents. They don't do this maliciously. But their way of driving is a problem for the rest of us who have come to expect drivers to respect turning lanes or be more considerate when changing lanes. They're not bad people. But they can be disruptive and inadvertently dangerous.
Are locals attached to the system? I don't think so. We disregard traffic rules often. But we disregard them in certain ways and not others, like speeding or rolling stops. So, it's not the system we're attached to. It's more like social conventions that allow us to get along. And when somebody new comes along who does not know or blatantly disregards those conventions, it's upsetting. We go through the trouble of following those conventions for the benefit of our communities. It's a courtesy. Discourtesy is frowned upon.
I think what happens is that those discourtesies add up until people just don't want to tolerate it anymore than they would allow a rude guest to stay in their home.
Your note about attachment recalled to memory a passage from the Enchiridion of Epictetus. Epictetus was a Roman slave, as a child and young man. Marcus Aurelius quotes Epictetus in his writings.
𝑌𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛. 𝐼𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡, 𝑎𝑠 𝑎 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑠, 𝑤𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦. 𝐵𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠, 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑔𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑒𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑜𝑠, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖𝑛ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑙𝑑.
𝑊ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑘 𝑚𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑡𝑒𝑥𝑡 𝑤𝑎𝑠 ℎ𝑜𝑤 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑖𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑠, 𝐼 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑦 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑖𝑡. 𝐻𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟, 𝑤𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑚 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑣𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑛𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑤 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑔. 𝑃𝑒𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑝𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑓𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑛, 𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑎 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑙𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑢𝑠 ℎ𝑜𝑤 𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑤𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒.
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑤𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑢𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟, 𝐼 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑝 𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑢𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑤𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑣𝑒 𝑜𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑦: 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑓𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠, 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠, 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑠. 𝐵𝑢𝑡 𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑤𝑒 𝑜𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑛 𝑠𝑢𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑤𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑡𝑜𝑜 𝑚𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑟 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑓𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡. 𝐴𝑠 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑢𝑡, 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑠, 𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙.
𝑃𝑒𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑝𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑑 ‘𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚’, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑎 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑦, 𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑝𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛. 𝑊ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑔𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑐𝑎𝑛 (𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙) 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑐𝑡, 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒.
𝑌𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑦 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛 𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑖𝑚 𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝑎 𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑚𝑒 𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑒. 𝐼𝑡'𝑠 𝑎 ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑙𝑦 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒. 𝑊𝑒 𝑜𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑦 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑠 𝑤𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒. 𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑠 𝑚𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑛𝑒𝑤 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝑏𝑜𝑡ℎ 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑦.
𝑌𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐵𝑢𝑑𝑑ℎ𝑎 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑠 𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑝𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑛𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑑𝑜𝑚 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛. 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑎𝑙𝑤𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒, 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑖𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑤, 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑢𝑡𝑦. 𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑓𝑎𝑑𝑒, 𝑤𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑐𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙: 𝑙𝑜𝑣𝑒, 𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑙𝑑. 𝐼𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑦 𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑛𝑦, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡'𝑠 ℎ𝑜𝑤 𝐼 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑑𝑎.