This doesn’t happen if people turn up their iPods and refuse to get involved. In that case, yeah, greed and war are inevitable. But I can’t take the cynical view that we’ve come so far just to throw up our hands and say “too hard, too confusing, I want my MTV.” I’ve been places where that way of thinking just doesn’t enter in to the picture, and I’ve been places where it IS the picture. Which category does this country fall into?

Conflict is boring. I want to see what people can do when they pool resources. That’s the real rush – not competition.

[sentenced edited due to explicit language] As long as people focus on money as the source of “happiness,” they’ll discard the larger resources of tradition, volunteering, community…

We’ve got to move beyond the acute narcissism we’re living under, turn off the TV and TALK to one another. Not via the ‘net, not via texting: eyes-open, roll-up-your-sleeves, hands-on “What-ails-thee-brother.”

I’m not talking about hippies and communists, and we’ll never progress if we keep reverting to those icons. They’re extinct. We need a new table to work from.

I’ve seen it work and I’ve seen it fail – and the traveler’s laments are always the same: “Why don’t we have that back home?” joined with “Why can’t these people have what we do back home?” But I promise it’ll never happen if people wait to have it sold to them.

It may never be paradise but it doesn’t have to be hell, either.

I’m getting the gist of your response to center on your hangup with the “rejects borders” line. Fine, uncle. Consider it poetic license. I know cosmopolitanism isn’t about erasing borders. But it does acknowledge unity of all sets within one set. 1 doesn’t equal 3, but they’re both still numbers. I’m not preaching relativism and I think the rest of my piece bears that out.

So, to the rest:
1) You’re confusing labels with components. It’s too simplistic to describe culture solely by geopolitical lines on a map. If you try to define what an American is precisely, you’re gonna start running into hyphenated nationalities. Know why? Borders don’t sum it up. If it did, Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds would be hugging each other as Iraqis and all that mess would be over. I know what you’re trying to say: Mexicans are Mexicans because they come from Mexico. But it falls apart when you say Mrs. Macomber is a Macomber because she was born on the lot where the Macombers live. And what does a nationality mean, anyway? When you say he’s Polish, what does that refer to? If you answer “he comes from Poland,” there’s little to work with unless I know what’s entailed by Polish culture.

You contradict yourself when you say you’re German and Scot(tish). You’re not. Your ancestors come from those places, but though some of their culture is undoubtedly passed on to you, you’re neither a German or Scot. Where do you plot gay or deaf cultures on a map? Or Jewish? To say all Jews come from Israel is seriously missing a point.

2) Need isn’t the same as greed. If I want a sandwich, it doesn’t mean I want everyone’s sandwiches. If you seriously believe people are only about conflict and greed… well, I feel sorry for you, but I don’t want to fight with you.

3) and 4) Okay. There are many reasons for wars starting. Sometimes it’s hate (Hutu and Tutsis), sometimes it’s money (guess who).

5) Someone out there must be proud of you.

I think it’s a mistake to describe “globalism” as a state. I know many anti-globalists do, but it’s a poor choice of words. Nobody wants to be against global unity or cooperation. I’m not sure how you could put the brakes on communication or transportation technology even if you wanted to. If you’re going to condemn smaller cultures being wiped out by dominant interests (often not nations, but multinationals – you know, groups that can’t be conveniently placed on a map?), call it by a more fitting name. I consider myself a feminist, but the problem with that is that it has so many different meanings – especially among feminists.

I’m all for globalization in the cosmopolitan sense. The continuum isn’t cosmopolitanism-globalism, it’s cosmopolitanism-nationalism. I don’t makes the rules, I just follows ‘em.

I didn’t name my article. My editor did. I submitted it as “The City of Humanity,” he changed it. I don’t think it’s such a big deal, but you can sort it out with Ian if it matters so much.

Oh good, glad to amuse you by quoting Kant and Hegel. Tell me, are you as much a snob with your students when they do the same, or just with faceless people on the ‘net? Or do you just tell them “what a load of crap” when they don’t match your master’s? I’m not into “conflict” as much as you are, sunshine, and I’d appreciate it if you don’t throw it my way. Thanks.

If my version of cosmopolitanism is wrong, so’s Kwame Anthony Appiah’s. He’s taught at six ivy league schools and you can “conflict” your edumacation with his if it floats you.

I think we’re looking for the roughly the same when we travel. As far as I’m concerned, “the world” starts with “the heart” right next to me. When I go abroad, I honor my hosts by not treating their country as an ashtray, and by doing so I pay respect to my heritage. If that’s a “political” attitude, I wouldn’t have it otherwise.

A few weeks after September 11, I met some young ladies from the Middle East on a train in Holland. I asked them what language they were speaking.

“Dari,” they replied. “It’s similar to Arabic, but it’s what we speak in our country.” I asked where they were from. “Afghanistan,” one replied. “And you?”

“Um, I’m from America…”

Considering what was happening then, there was a few seconds of awkward silence. I said, “Well, this is an interesting situation…” Some people on the train laughed, and so did the young ladies.

I asked them why they were so far from home. “It was difficult under the Taliban, but then the Americans came. A bomb fell on my neighbor’s house, and a family of 14 is now a family of 2. We decided we had to go, and now we live in a refugee camp in Frisland. We’re looking for work in Amsterdam.”

I asked them if it bothered them that I was talking to them, as an American and with recent events being what they were.

They said, “No, it does not. We’re only people on a train.”

That’s the spirit in which I wrote my article, and I wouldn’t change any of it.