Nationalism, is it an outmoded relic of a historic era? Seemingly so. The world has ceased to be split so evenly between one nation or another. Each has an impact on virtually every other and the politics and economics of the world are so interconnected that nothing can happen that does not affect the entire world. Is nationalism, then, still valid? The belief that one nation is above all others? Can one, in this globalized world, ally oneself with just one nation and support its governmnet indefinitely? I think not.
The very events of globalization have made the world "smaller". Communication takes less time, one can move around the world with unprecendented speed. One can live halfway across the globe and still keep regular contact with one's friends and family. No longer are people confined to simply one state or continent, then entire world has now become united, if not politically and socially, then economically and communication wise. One can no longer see the world from the narrow view of nationalism, that one state is the center of the world. That has changed, and the outmoded ideal of nationalism cannot stand up to the continual interconnection of the world. The economic borders have already vanished, so have the communicative borders. Nationalism has become too narrow a notion. Its existance past its usefulness, an outmoded relic of an era now resigned to history. And it must be resigned as well, to history, a view which no longer conforms to the world and which must be replaced.

I agree essentially with you, if perhaps my reasons are more 'Nationalism-is-just-plain-wrong' than 'Nationalism-is-outdated'. You can't speak as if Nationalism did have a hey-day when it was relevant, because it has done little good in it's existence, apart from perhaps win a few football matches. I would also disagree that borders are open. For some countries perhaps, but others not. I'm thinking primarily at this time of the People's (HAHAHAHA) Republic of Korea.

Marching around blowing hot air about how much better your country is only leads to rivalry. And rivalry leads to conflict. (And fear leads to anger, etc. etc. :P)

I did not mean to say that nationalism was ever justified or that it has any redeeming characteristics. I am trying to say that humanity has advanced far enough to see it for what it truly is. Additionally, had I plainly said nationalism is wrong, proper consideration would not have been given to my statement by the more impulsive of this forum. I said that it was outdated because nationalism grew quickly the years preceeding and during the World Wars. The political visions then included nationalist superiority and at the time virtually every government, at least the colonial governments, made nationalism an integral part of their policy, foreign and domestic. Since then, nationalism has receeded and I was saying that its continued use is not only anachronistic but also damaging and superfluous. That being said, I am in complete agreement.

I should be more precise, when I say that the economic borders have dissapeared I do not mean for the individual citizens of every state, I am reffering to the large corporations and conglomerates, who more often than not wield power int heir country of origin and are practically immune to law in the poorer countries where they do business. In this case, there is very little, if anything, stopping them from taking advantage of cheap labor and a virtual lack of law restricting their behaviour. Information similarly, while nominally countries may be isolated, it is almost impossible to restrict information flow these days and even the most backwater of regions has some sort of communication with the rest of the world.

I don't think nationalism will ever be completely disappated. The opposite of nationalism would probably occur in the form of no countries, rather, one global goverment. I don't think this is possible, thanks to longstanding and seemingly invincible cultural barriers. I also think that nationalism is key to any nations growth, so long as it stays within certain boundries. Odviousely nationalism backfired on Germany during WWII, but it has motivated a number of economic and political recoveries in history.

Yes, but again all occuring in one country. Nationalism is going to dissapear, not soo, but eventually. Just as the processes of globalization throughout human history have led from a village based society, to a state based society and eventually yo a global society. Nationalism, while beneficial to one country and one group of people is detrimental to the human race as a whole and it will eventually be removed or rendered insignificant, just as one can no longer keep sole allegiance to one little city or tribe.

yet so many do, here in america we are taught that nationalism is a good thing

 Cold is God's way of telling us to burn more catholics.

At the moment, a loss of nationalism could destroy a country; it's simply too strong in others. Lets think historicly. China and Japan have a history of disagreeing. If one were to lose its sense of nationalism, would the other not seek to exploit that? I don't just mean militarily, I might add.

No, the whole world would have to change at once. The circumstances that would be required for that to happen would have to be phenominal, beyond current comprehension. Am I wrong?

So can I be correct in thinking that you think the Earth will eventually become a single global state?

As much as I'd like such a thing to happen, the sheer practicality of it all is ridiculous. For one we'd have to get all the leaders of the world to get together into an agreement to get together and cooperate (and then probably to choose one leader, because there would be way too much beaurocracy and bickering to support the whole world otherwise) which is again incredibly difficult because absolute power corrupts absolutely. I don't think you can suggest that because of globablisation everything will eventually pan out to one single world state.

Nice thinking though. :\

I agree with Esmo. Rep +
Shotgun

It is not the matter of the politicians or the governments uniting the world. It is not a feat that can be achieved by them, demanding compliance of their electorate or subjects. Such a thing will occur when humanity, when the people are willing to move forward. This day need not come soon, and likely it will not, but it seems as if it is an eventuality, and it will one day occur. Not for the power of the leaders or throught their cooperation, that is sure to never happen, but by the will of the people for the welfare of the people.

Nationalism is very good. It makes you proud of the country you came from. There's community/country togetherness.

Can one not think of the human race as one thinks of one's family? Can one not be together with one's entire species? Can one not be proud that one spawns from a logical species of mammals?

One can conclude that people worldwide don't think of each other as family simply by watching the news.

I doubt everyone's gonna get along together

But then since when have you known the entire world to be unanimously willing for anything of a political nature?