WI Pan-Humanism was an extremely prominent ideology?

Pan-Africanism is still a movement, albeit small, however in the past (especially during the end of colonialism) it thrived.

What if the world experienced similar levels of Pan-Humanism, if not more during that period and beyond?

Would we see Unified nations or would they inevitably fail?
 
By Pan-humanism, do you mean the internal unification of various cultural groups, analagous to Pan-Africanism, eg. Pan-Asianism, Pan-Amerindian etc?

Or do you mean all of humanity joining together as one big cultural/political group, like in the John Lennon song Imagine?

If it's the latter, you're gonna need a WAY earlier POD than 1900. Like, you'd pretty much need to stop the monolith from ever coming down.
 
Well, for me the idea of united humanity is pure non sense, but I think that humanity or bigger part of it may unite in context of common danger or enemy. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I do not believe that humanity will live in peace in this century at least.
 
I agree with the idea that, if you're talking about ALL humanity uniting together, you'd need a POD well before 1900. There's just far too much to overcome by the 20th century for it to realistically achieve any results. Now, if you don't necessarily need it to achieve much beyond becoming popular for lots of people, I wonder if a Cold War gone hot might do that? It could easily have the adverse effect, but it might just incentivize enough of the survivors to put down their various bigotries and work together if only for their own survival.
 
Aliens.

You need aliens from outer space.

That oughta do it.

Though if those aliens have studied the history of Earth(and with the kind of tech they'd have, they'd likely be able to), they'd know that the way to go about conquering the place would be to go in and strike up alliances with one faction of earthlings against another.
 
From the Nazi concentration camps, and all the deaths from the Nazi invasion of Russia and the battle of Stalingrad, and from how the Japanese treated the Chinese,

and shit, from how the relative good guys acted, even though the Nazis had first bomber civilian areas, the British damn sure picked up on it, I believed it was even called “terror bombing” by Churchill’s cabinet and the stated purpose was to break German morale. That didn’t happen, but it certainly extracted revenge. And the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when the war was essentially over and that was perhaps the most controversial aspect.

Maybe masculine courage is redefined, and this would be a movement first and foremost among men,

and courage would damn sure not mean doing what a government says in time of war.
 
Last edited:
Pan-Africanism is still a movement, albeit small, however in the past (especially during the end of colonialism) it thrived.

What if the world experienced similar levels of Pan-Humanism, if not more during that period and beyond?

Would we see Unified nations or would they inevitably fail?

... pan-humanism you say... :rolleyes:
 
I think per Thomas Kuhn's book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and his ideas about a "paradigm shift," not only must people feel that there are real problems with the current theory, in this case how nationalism and courage are often defined,

but there needs to be a competing theory or world view good enough for people to make what's essentially a leap of faith!
 
Not at all possible as long as sovereign nation-states exist and are competing for their interests. To quote Lord Palmerston:

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."
 
Nearly everyone in this thread is completely missing the actual request of the OP, which was not to figure out how you could end the century with a united world government with a PoD in 1900, but instead to create an ideological movement in favor of world government and tearing down the barriers between nations, etc., with a certain degree of influence, enough that maybe a few governments officially support it and it's not a fringe movement but reasonably popular. It does not have to actually succeed, merely attain this degree of influence at some point whether or not it declines thereafter.

But, as it so happens, this is historical! After the end of World War II, there was for a period of time a fairly active movement that could be described as "pan-Humanist," dedicated to supporting the United Nations and generally some kind of global governance. This was expressed in organizations such as UNA-USA or the World Federalist Movement, which at their peaks in the late 1940s attracted tens of thousands of members and which had links, albeit indirect, to actual national governments. However, by about the mid-1950s they began to decline, and by the 1980s or so were essentially fringe groups, especially in the United States where conspiracy theories and kvetching about the United Nations became particularly strong and support for any kind of global government was thus heavily disfavored.

So it would actually be totally reasonable to say that this WI is what actually happened, and therefore no changes need to be made. However, assuming that the OP had in mind something more long-lasting and influential than this brief mid-century period when forming some kind of global government was a serious and somewhat popular political opinion--which the comparison to pan-Africanism certainly suggests--still doesn't suggest that we need to abolish states, or any state, to achieve it, just extend this period and give it deeper roots in public opinion so that there's still a committed and somewhat noisy minority in favor today. This isn't easy, mind you, since a lot of their success had to do with that brief period when the United States alone had nuclear weapons and many people thought that some kind of international control would be the best way to avoid nuclear war, but it's sure a lot easier than working out how to turn the United Nations into a global government.
 
. . . But, as it so happens, this is historical! After the end of World War II, there was for a period of time a fairly active movement that could be described as "pan-Humanist," dedicated to supporting the United Nations and generally some kind of global governance. This was expressed in organizations such as UNA-USA or the World Federalist Movement, which at their peaks in the late 1940s attracted tens of thousands of members and which had links, albeit indirect, to actual national governments. . .
Would like to see something more, like the two parties compete on who’s better for economic growth.
 

Citizenship in the Community


Citizenship in the Nation



Citizenship in the World

When I in Boy Scouts back in the 1970s, all three of these were required merit badges, along with Camping, Cooking, First Aid, Safety, Hiking, total of (?) 24, for the progression .... Scout First Class, Star Scout, Life Scout, and Eagle Scout.

Very matter of fact, no controversy. I later reflected as an adult, no contradiction among them, or at least a heck of a lot less than often argued.
 
Top