The nature of human beings is a very curious thing; throughout history, we have

proven ourselves to be the dominant species among all other sentient life as we have
utilized tools, established language, created education, and endured many other
successful ventures. Though we may have reached a perceived apex of superiority
among the natural order, we have seemingly lost some of our instinctual nature
occasionally abandoning the notion of what is good for our continued existence via a
multitude of violence and national policy aggravating international relationships
(topping the list of course is warfare). For most sentient organisms with neurological
capabilities, the concept of strength in numbers is prevalent throughout almost every
species. This practice is pertinent for survival however the human race, once again a
curious and comparatively strange inhabitant of the planet, has taken the idea to an
extreme in multiple facets including religion, culture, politics, even aspects as mundane
as dietary choice (e.g. omnivorous vs. vegetarian). Though these are all very different
and potentially encompass millions (or billions) of people one of the most troubling
aspects of which we see a strength in numbers ideology is what we identify as
nationalism a belief that ones country supersedes others in importance and overall
status thus leading to a jaded perception of knowing what is best for the rest of the
world.
Nationalism, a form of learned favoritism or devotion to ones country, exists only
among humanity as no other species that we know of has established political and
otherwise imaginary boundaries used to determine a difference from place to place on
Earth. The idea itself became popular during the 18
th
century and developed from an
earlier devotion to a leader. Emulating ideals conceived during and after the
Enlightenment, political philosophers were on the rise and brought forth new ideas of
what the role of government should be in a society. Although the nation-state has
persisted throughout history, the idea of nationalism is a relatively modern one (not to
say that it has never existed before it was identified but we now have a name for it). It
may be hard to observe for anyone who considers him or herself to be a citizen
especially considering even the most critical citizens may have bias or preference for his
or her own country. Nationalism is often equated with patriotism however there are a
few distinct differences between the two, one of which being that patriotism usually
does not condone violence on others because of a difference in country of origin. Other
differences include the overall goal of nationalism: striving for maximum expansion and
power. Patriotism is simply the love for ones country and is personally expressed
through various forms. Nationalism is an outright view that foreign countries and their
people should strive to replicate the culture, language, religion, etc. as the home country
and if this is not possible, it is the duty of the home country to assimilate those outliers.
This sort of prejudice is detrimental for a more global, interconnected world into which
we are currently evolving.
Though nationalism is prevalent throughout many nations of the world, it seems
that the most troubling exhibition is in the United States, considered to be the most
powerful nation on the planet. The reason nationalism is such a problem here is because
it essentially provides a convenient excuse to terrorize others who may not identify
themselves as American (or perhaps they do and their persecutors, American citizens,
believe otherwise such as the militaristic border control we can see with residents of
southern states acting as vigilantes securing the U.S./Mexico border using their own
illegal means). Modern American nationalism is even a component of political parties in
our bipartisan Many social analysts view the United States as the most influential of
nationalists as the nations slogan of the 19
th
century was Manifest Destiny, or that the
United States had a divine right to spread across the whole of the North American
continent or at least from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific.
American nationalism has been applied through malicious invasions and
annexations of lands previously occupied by natives. Even in its infancy, the U.S. has
frequently forced indigenous peoples out of their homes to make room for its white
population. Probably the most well-known of these expansions was the Louisiana
Purchase, commissioned by President Thomas Jefferson in 1803 further displacing the
natives as whites continued to civilize these previously unfamiliar regions. Not long
after in 1845, President James K. Polk confided to his secretary of the navy that he
wished to acquisition California as a result of the newly acquired region of former
Mexico following the U.S. triumph in the Mexican-American War. It became obvious
that the acquisition was a more politicized form of nationalist expansion disguised as a
noble enterprise to suppress a perceived enemy. It was common for advocates for
expansion to use words such as civilize, savages, and bringing democracy when
describing their stance on invading Mexico.
Many proponents of nationalism advocate this ideology because it bolsters the
status of a country and promotes unity of its citizens, one of the largest being Karl Marx
who gained prominence in the political sphere with his famous Communist Manifesto.
Though support for nationalism is based on ethical principles, it fails to account for not
only the shortcomings and hindrances of nationalism but support for it fails to account
for the subsequent loss of life through warfare and other forms of malevolence.
Nationalism has an appeal for those who have love for their country however such
passion can impede peoples perception of how others are being affected. Nationalism
may even cause a total desensitization toward the well-being or peril of others in some.
As societies become more global, it is contrary to this growth to perpetuate nationalist
agenda. If we are to become more harmonious in the near future, it is essential that we
abandon the outdated principle that countries outrank one another.