One Answer

  1. I can tell you by personal example. Personally, I became a cosmopolitan in the 10th grade (like most students now, I guess). And we had two physical education teachers: a father and a son. Both held some obscure, but very conservative and radical views. Some form of nationalism and hostility to the West was also not alien to them. Well, they were very fond of sometimes “talking for life”with their students. My father was particularly active in this regard. When I said that I was actually cosmopolitan, it became very fun for me to live in fiz-re, periodic statements from them in the style of”they don't know a damn thing about their Homeland, they don't like it, Ivans are nameless (although unlike him, I know my ancestors up to five generations ago), any tree will fall without roots, the fifth column, and in general, such dissidents should be shot.” The latter is verbatim.�

    In principle, in some cases, I understood that there are reasons to say so:

    1. It is very difficult from the point of view of the manager to keep a person in his power, if he always has the opportunity to get somewhere far away from this manager. I do not say that this is something bad, this “no one can control” may well be mistaken and only make it worse for everyone, and the manager may be absolutely right in his demands.

    2. Much depends on a person's attitude to their own national identity. Only because it seems logical to me to preserve the cultural heritage and its diversity as much as possible, even when I am in Holland, I define myself as Russian, read our literature, listen to Russian music sometimes (Marshal Industrial is anyone there, Pegan folk is good), watch Soviet films. Because it is more interesting when you are a representative of one culture, your friend-another, your employer-a third, and so on. But there are those who try to absorb as much as possible that globalistic Western culture, denying their own history. I'm not saying they're wrong, they have their own reasons for doing so, obviously. But if they become the overwhelming majority, then, obviously, Humanity is waiting for cultural impoverishment.�

    3. The positive aspects are clear: it is almost impossible for cosmopolitanism and Nazism / fascism / wadded-up patriotism / imperialism to coexist in one person, and other things that are so relevant and unfounded. It also opens up ways to gain experience from other countries. This is possible even without cosmopolitanism, but it becomes easier when there are no restrictions on the type of “this is not Russian”, “this has never been and will not be so in our country”, and so on.�
    4. An army of cosmopolitans is impossible, unless it is fighting for all of Humanity against some aliens and other terrorists. Decide for yourself whether this is good or bad.�

    So far, I can't single out any other advantages and disadvantages. Maybe I'll edit the answer and add it. I hope there isn't too much “water”in the answer.

Leave a Reply