On Nationalism

I'm writing this because I'm getting increasingly annoyed at comments like "us British were so much better than you Americans at world war two" "I'm an American and I'd like to think that means something" "they just don't understand how we do things here in England". Because I am of the humblest opinion that nationality means absolutely nothing.

I have always been perplexed the idea that because someone born in the same politically-defined region of the world as you were did something, that you should feel pride or shame at that thing being done. Alexander Graham Bell, a brit, created the telephone, so therefore I should be proud that I too am British. Joseph Oppenheimer, an American, created the atom bomb, so all other Americans should be ashamed of themselves. Or so the logic goes.
But, why?! Why does it matter what nation a high-flier was born in, or what culture they grew up in? It says nothing about the rest of the population of that nation; anyone with any sense knows that. Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King both came from the same nations as the people who killed them. Germany has produced both vicious dictators and fantastic philosophers. Britain's people can apparently fight against fascism and fan the flames of colonialism with equal energy and effectiveness.

There are those who believe, quite understandably, that nationalism builds a sense of community and interconnectedness that we all need in our lives. But it is very much a community based on exclusion. Nationalism calls for us to celebrate all the people of our own nation are, and all everyone else isn't. It is completely different to annything resembling a true sense of unity amongst humans.

The uncompromised exclusiveness of nationalism is a huge problem. A British person's responsibility to their fellow man doesn't end at the English Channel, North Sea, or border with Ireland. An American shouldn't has no leave to stop caring about someone else just because they live below the Rio Grande or above the 49th parallel. Yet consistently, we act like we somehow have less reason to care about suffering and the consequences of our actions if it occurs beyond our national borders. Last year, the UK government spent a hell of a lot more on foreign aid than on the NHS. If that fact made you uneasy; you've proven my point.

To clarify, I'm not advocating some sort of unified, world-wide government. I don't think so, anyway. I respect the nation-state as a political structure, and believe that, in this day and age, it is probably the best way to do government. If I was to advocate any sort of change in this respect, it would be to make the areas of sovereignty smaller, not larger.
But that is where my nationalism ends. In short, the world is too vast, too complicated and too wonderful to limit your interest, concern or passion to one political subdivision of it. And people are too darn important to dismiss the billions who live beyond the coasts and boundaries beyond my own nation.

The call to true unity has never been more important, at a time when the great rift in culture and compassion between the West and the Third World threatens to open up and send the world tumbling into chaos. We need to start listening to and helping the people in those far-flung places which are too easy to forget. We need to cast off artificial labels relating to location, culture and ethnicity which, frankly, are ruining everything, and stand as we truly are: as one, continuous, undivided human race.