[smokeyj]

> it's often a group of people with a shared history, culture, and language, what's often referred to as a 'nation'

But nationalism applies to a specific territory -- as defined by a government. It just seems arbitrary to love people of a certain territory and not another due to a border established by a monopolistic force on violence.

[gyardley]

Nationalism applies to a nation. Some nations have governments, and some don't. Some governments govern over multiple nations peacefully, and many others don't. Some nations without governments have aspirations to form them, while others don't. Even tying a nation to a specific territory is problematic - some nations, often due to persecution, are widely dispersed in a diaspora.

You're trying to simplify something that's rather complex because you don't like nationalism - but people almost universally have more affection towards those who share things in common with them, and that's all nationalism is at its core. Borders on a map don't create this national affection - instead, nationalism creates the borders! When borders get out of sync with nations, you get war and unrest, both within and between countries, and when this happens, it's usually the border that eventually ends up getting adjusted, with exceptions only achieved through brutal repression.

[smokeyj]

It sounds like nation is another word for culture.. am I far off?

I guess I don't understand the point of nationalism -- besides the obvious -- to distinguish and dehumanize people of other cultures.

In your opinion, should people take pride in the color of their skin?

[gyardley]

Culture is a big part of it, yes, but often 'nation' does include aspects of ethnicity. Like I said, the term is complex.

Nationalism is something people seem to naturally do. Whether it has a 'point' or not in 2013 is pretty irrelevant - if people are doing it anyway, it's important to try and understand it. While nationalism certainly does distinguish people, it doesn't follow that it dehumanizes others. Having a 'love of country' is perfectly compatible with recognizing the humanity of those not in it.

As for your last question, of course not. I'm a little curious why you asked me that. Do you think I'm some sort of racist for trying to explain a concept to you that's prevalent across the globe?

[smokeyj]

> Culture is a big part of it, yes, but often 'nation' does include aspects of ethnicity.

Google defines ethnicity as: The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.

Sounds a bit circular.

> Nationalism is something people seem to naturally do.

Nationalism is something you do? How does one nationalism?

> Whether it has a 'point' or not in 2013 is pretty irrelevant - if people are doing it anyway, it's important to try and understand it

Based on what I've gathered, nationalism is a way to arbitrarily distinguish your culture from another in hopes of inevitably forming a border with your neighbor in order to enact a national government?

> Do you think I'm some sort of racist for trying to explain a concept to you that's prevalent across the globe?

Not one bit. I understand the notion is prevalent, but I wonder if we would be better off without it. Similar to racism, it's prevalent and we would be better off without it. I do feel that many arguments in favor of national pride work in favor of racial pride as well -- which is why I brought it up.