Most people seem to have viewed Bamyeh's essays souly as descriptive and disecting text. I took them more of a reflection on the way in which we view our country and how others. These view points affect the way in which the country is run. The rise of imperialism was mainly fostered by the potential for capitalistic gains; however, without the nationalistic mentality ideas like the "white man's burden" and "saving the savages" would not have arisen.
It is not necessary for a country to assume superiority to trade and function with a different country, but that feeling is more often there. I wonder what the age of imperialism would have been like if the more technologically advanced countries hadn't assumed superiority. What would have been different in Africa? Would the indigenious tribes of the South Pacific be thriving instead of being morphed into a bastardization of their former culture represented as the tropical oasis for honeymooners? Even America. Nationalism is a dangerous tool in the hands of a greedy or even just a onesided individual. If you are looking at the benefit for your people alone, you may kill off thousands by introducing small pox into their lives, or you may kill of individuals based entirely on their religion. To me there is a difference between nationalism and patriotism. The difference to me is that nationalism is a broader idea. Nationalism describes more of an ethnic pride. While patriotism to me refers to the sense of pride and loyalty one has for a country or government. Patriotism can exist regardless of whether the country is still in existance or if the idea is still in development. Patriotism is unique to each individual. It never takes on the same connotation. They are both equally powerful as they are dangerous.
My question is do you think it is possible to foster a feeling of nationalistic or patriotic pride on a global level? Or is the lack of opposition or otherness preventing the formation of such an ideology?