Lauren

I think the best way to promote peace in the 21st century is to neither promote homogeneity nor diversity. People will live with and interact with who they want and promoting one or the other will just interrupt the peace. Especially in this century and in America where we pride ourselves for being diverse, we cannot really advocate homogeneity all of a sudden. It is the similar in other nations. Two groups cannot be forced to live with each other if they have hated each other for millions of years; but at the same time, most other countries have longer histories than we do and their hatred could be greater and for better reasons so forcing the to live together could be bad. Basically in America there is no need for promoting who people spend time with, but in other countries there might be positives to promoting homogeneity.

Kitty's ideas

Will greater peace be created in the 21st century by promoting homgenaity? In other words, is it better for alike peoples to live together? Or, is it better to promote racial, ethnic, religious and other kinds of diversity? Can you you really advocate homgenaity? Can you force different people who have not liked each other to live in harmony?

First of all, Mr. Clark, tisk tisk on that spelling and grammar in the question, minus one point for you, just kidding. I just thought it was ironic. So now to the question at hand…

I agree completely with the idea that homogeneity will sufficiently lessen conflicts. The only problem is that we would have to disregard some of our western standards of acceptance, in order to put this idea in place. A common idea that many people put into practice in everyday life, is to be around those like themselves. For example: friends. Many people choose their friends based on common characteristics or interests. They choose to be with those that they can relate to. This idea holds true for all those around the world. Although there will still be some conflicts, many of the struggles between cultures can be severely cut down. The only problem with this whole idea is that the world has been supposedly moving towards a more united world. We want a place where no matter who you are or where you came from, we can all get along. If we adopt this idea of homogeneity than we will just be fueling the idea of separating those who can not get along instead of trying to actually resolve issues. The problem comes when deciding what situations we should apply this idea to and which situations should be worked out. I am glad that I am not the one having to make that decision.

A Global Community

In December 2008, the G192 met in Doha to discuss the global financial crisis and how it would impact financial aid for countries.  This is the General Assembly of the United Nations–delegations from every country.  The news often covers the G8, a body made up of the global superpowers, and now is hyping up more and more the G20 economic powers, but the G192 gives equal voice to every nation in the world.  And as it turned out, the consensus was, that the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the big players in the global aid scene were unfairly influenced by the superpower nations that were supplying them with the most money, and actually creating policies that were hurting the developing nations that depend on the institutions' aid.

What the majority of nations said was that the G8, G20, and other bodies that underrepresent the make up of the world of the world should be abolished.  NGOs, experts, and people around the world agreed, and thought the United States and other nations might not be willing to hand over their political capital, but the fact that a G20 has been created is a sign that the world wants more voice in global decision-making.  But if the world is going to value the voice of all its nations equally, at some point, political leverage will be meaningless because no one will be able to have it.

In North Ireland, even Iraq and Palestine, democracy is trying to foster itself in fair representation in the respective governments.  In Tehran, there is even a Jewish representative in the government.  The United States and others seem to rate others on how fairly represented their citizens are.  But if the world begins to equally represent all of its member nations, then it would be as though the United Nations, the IMF, World Bank, and all of these organizations are the ultimate democracies.

It's strange to imagine, but it seems that if the world is truly moving towards a platform where the world is literally "flat," then countries will have their borders open to business, trade, ideas, and different peoples.  In a sense, the world would be like one nation, without borders.  Diverse. The world is becoming less and less divided.

From my perspective, this issue relies on several things. First, we have to look at past examples of different ethnic/religious groups trying to live together in peace. One example is the Armenian/Turkish instance, in which the Armenians, a Christian nation, lived with the Turks, who were largely Muslim. The Armenians were able to live in relative peace for hundreds of years (besides the fact that they were repressed), and finally, in the late 1800s early 1900s, they "rebelled" against the Turks, and the Turks then campaigned what most people call the worst genocide in the 20th century. So from this example, we can see that no matter how hard people try, it is nigh impossible for different ethnic/religious groups to live in perfect peace. Second, I think we have to look at the type of government that a specific nation/country operates under. I think one reason why the US is so "peaceful," at least compared with the rest of the world, is because we are a democratic nation that is protected under a series of checks and balances between the three branches of government. However, if we were to look at Nazi Germany, we see a dictatorship ruled by Hitler. This is bad because if one man rules a nation, then his prejudice presides over the will of the people, and persuades the people in a certain direction, usually for the worse, as shown in pre-WWI with the Turks and WWII with the Nazi party. Once we bring the issue of government into view, I think everything else becomes irrelevant, or at least becomes a second level concern. So my answer would be yes, it is possible for people to live in homogeneity, but under certain circumstances, such as the US. And even then, the US is not perfect. I think democracy is the way to go, most definitely, but it is nearly impossible to impose it on every other country. So I guess my opinion is that homogeinty is possible, but not necessarily probable, given these factors and examples.

Bringing diversity to homogenous nations is the answer to the issue of achieving peace in the 21st century. It can be argued that if homogenaity works for a particular society, then why change what is proven to work? Some of the most efficient and prosperous societies, such as Japan, are in fact homogenous. However, we have also seen various cases where a homogenous society leads to cultural, ethnic or religious clashes. For one thing, a homogenous society can be restricting to one's beliefs and what is accepted. There are still many nations that harbor the belief that diversifying their country can/will lead to negative repercussions and unwanted changes in an already established culture. While this anxiety is legitimate, the long term result can be highly influential and set a positive example for other homogenous nations. The process of bringing diverse people to interact and live with each other is tedious and requires much cooperation and time. As the saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink," the same holds true for bringing diverse people together and making them accept one another right away.
Even the most homogenous nations are subject to change somewhat over time and become more diverse so sooner or later these nations will need to come to terms with homogenaity. While there will always be one issue or another between two or more groups of people, diversity is a step in the right direction. Diversity, like homogenaity, cannot solve everything. Although homogenaity is still a concept embraced by countries like Japan, diversity allows new oportunities between countries and can improve international relations, a ceoncept key to achieving peace and stability. I think it is wrong for nations, such as North Korea, to isolate and limit itself from other societies, such as that of neighboring South Korea (North Korea is currently in a state of total isolation as well as economic despair due to an extreme homogenous society). In order for greater peace to be reached, it is imperative that societies let go of deeply rooted feuds and cultural tensions.

Maddie

The problems of the world are extremely complex and vary greatly from region to region, and because of these reasons, I do not believe that an overlying theme of homogeneity can solve the many problems we face. Many conflicts arise when countries hope to include peoples of similar backgrounds into their borders and face resistance from another source, often leading to armed conflict. Homogeneity would possibly provide a simple fix for this large problem, but I feel that this peace may not be a long lasting solution. There will always be people of certain ethnic backgrounds that do not live in their homelands and there will always be people that have multiple backgrounds. If countries hope to incorporate all people of that ethnic background by bringing them into their boarders through force, then the world will be at war as each individual is fought over to be brought into their homeland. Also, people that have multiple ethnic backgrounds would be a source for even more fighting as countries try to decide where they belong, or possibly no country will want this cultural “mutt.” Even if countries were able to achieve their ideal homogeneity, I believe there will always be problems that arise, whether they are over land, religion, or the preferred hairstyle of a country’s inhabitants. Homogeneity may be a solution to many of the problems the world sees today, but it does not solve all problems, and I am sure more will arise. The world needs to find ways to peacefully resolve any conflicts without taking the easy quick-fix method that I think homogeneity would be.

Janet

To understand this issue we should first take into account that it's a very complex one and it is difficult or even dangerous to make generalizations. Religious, racial, and ethnic issues are very particular; they vary from one conflict to another.

Segregating people into homogeneous communities, creates a setup for conflict between groups. Maybe within a single nation there would be more peace, but internationally it would cause more conflict because of the magnification of the differences between groups.

The Israeli and Palestinian hostilities exemplify a conflict between two generally homogeneous groups that is based on deep-seated resentments regarding religion and history. This creates a situation that is so volatile that the two groups are likely to engage in violence whenever they encounter one another. This is why Israel is building a 425-mile long wall of separation. The Ottoman Empire also represents an attempt to provide a stable political environment based on the coexistence of numerous homogeneous religious groups. But differences increased over time, and the separate religious communities became nationalist ones. Religious affiliation surpassed religious belief in importance.

You cannot force people who don't like each other to live together, but creating separate homogeneous communities is not the solution.