Across a line, we divide you and I. A line draw by who, we question not. Does who we are define who we are not? Is there really such a line?
Yesterday evening, a group of friends, including an academic, were discussing about why military officers do what we do. One puts forth that the very act of dividing people is flawed as there is no such thing as a division. The only purpose of the line, as he puts it, is to justify the shooting and killing so that we do not feel guilt for taking lives. This is particularly vexing in the context of the usage of unmanned killer drones. An operator may wake up in his suburban house in Vegas, drives over to his office, controls a drone in Afghanistan, kills a few terrorists and goes for lunch with an accomplished mission in his pocket. When killing another human becomes so easy and impersonal, the justification for the line must be questioned.
If one is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail. We all bring to any situations our own perceptions and this shapes our understanding. If we believe that there is such a divide between you and me, we will see each other with a sense of tension and conflict. The other way to see the situation is to see that we have common interests of survival and progress, we may work together to achieve it.
However, is it intrinsically wrong to draw the divide? I enjoy my current standard of living because there is a there is a group of people producing these things that I enjoy. There is a divide between them and me simply by my enjoying the things that they produce and that they will probably not be able use.
Any definition of a group natural defines what is not within the group. The divide is necessary and natural. It is the awareness of the line that makes the difference