Here, I will describe further my own headcanon and discuss the pictures.
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ...
The first picture is a bit too specific for it to gel perfectly with my canon, so I will describe where I disagree.
"Nations aren't born in the way that humans are born" is certainly a true statement. It would make no sense for them to be born the same way, considering the vast number of differences between how humans and how nations operate.
"When a new nation is about to be created, the land senses it, and a plant sprouts." Again, I agree. I said in the last post that I believe nations to be part plant, and this is what I mean. I believe that nations are born from plants, but after this statement, the picture loses me on details. To me, nations are born from plants native in the area, which often later become a national plant or a prominent icon. These plants shape their personality. This is significantly different than most headcanons, including Kimanda's, that portray the plant as an undiscovered species.
Nations grow in groups of these plants even before they have a people to attach to. The concept of "free" nations is something I take from Kimanda because I feel that it makes a lot of sense. Nations attach to a people soon after they're born, but not before. Some may say that it's impossible, as the picture states, because nations feed off their people. I believe that they do as well, but as a species, it makes more sense for a lot of nations to grow and gradually kill each other off, taking the lands others gained in the process. It's more similar to how societies actually develop, and the other theory goes with the fact that we have foreknowledge of who will win in development. At the time, no one knew which developing nation would come out on top, so why would nations develop for people who don't come into existence for centuries?
The last thing I want to talk about is the final paragraph of the picture. I don't believe that nations speak immediately after they're born. When they do speak, they know the language(s) of their people fully, but they would need time to develop survival skills and come into contact with people.
I also believe they don't quite know what they are. They know they are different and can do things the humans cannot, but there is no good reason for them to have such foreknowledge. They need to figure out what they are via contact with others.
That leads into the fact that nations are more hostel towards each other than the last paragraph in the first picture suggests. Other nations would not take care of younger ones when they're developing. Smaller nations are a potential threat. Older nations take care of smaller ones in more modern times.
"Nations aren't born in the way that humans are born" is certainly a true statement. It would make no sense for them to be born the same way, considering the vast number of differences between how humans and how nations operate.
"When a new nation is about to be created, the land senses it, and a plant sprouts." Again, I agree. I said in the last post that I believe nations to be part plant, and this is what I mean. I believe that nations are born from plants, but after this statement, the picture loses me on details. To me, nations are born from plants native in the area, which often later become a national plant or a prominent icon. These plants shape their personality. This is significantly different than most headcanons, including Kimanda's, that portray the plant as an undiscovered species.
Nations grow in groups of these plants even before they have a people to attach to. The concept of "free" nations is something I take from Kimanda because I feel that it makes a lot of sense. Nations attach to a people soon after they're born, but not before. Some may say that it's impossible, as the picture states, because nations feed off their people. I believe that they do as well, but as a species, it makes more sense for a lot of nations to grow and gradually kill each other off, taking the lands others gained in the process. It's more similar to how societies actually develop, and the other theory goes with the fact that we have foreknowledge of who will win in development. At the time, no one knew which developing nation would come out on top, so why would nations develop for people who don't come into existence for centuries?
The last thing I want to talk about is the final paragraph of the picture. I don't believe that nations speak immediately after they're born. When they do speak, they know the language(s) of their people fully, but they would need time to develop survival skills and come into contact with people.
I also believe they don't quite know what they are. They know they are different and can do things the humans cannot, but there is no good reason for them to have such foreknowledge. They need to figure out what they are via contact with others.
That leads into the fact that nations are more hostel towards each other than the last paragraph in the first picture suggests. Other nations would not take care of younger ones when they're developing. Smaller nations are a potential threat. Older nations take care of smaller ones in more modern times.
... ... ...
In the next post, I will discuss the second picture, and possibly others, and further expand my headcanon to readers.
No comments:
Post a Comment