Nationalism v. Worldism

Citizenship is a big issue with the world we live in today. In countries all over the world, there are holidays to celebrate nothing but citizenship to one's country and the history behind it. In the United States, American flags fly outside all public buildings and students stand every morning to pledge allegiance to everything this country stands for. Around the world, there is the same sense of national pride, and it's for no reason except living in a certain region. Government and citizenship is important in the world we live in today. This is completely different than Europe in the past.

To even use the term "national pride" to describe Western Europe in the middle ages would be incorrect. It was originally set up as a feudal system of government where there were many small kings who were in charge of the small region that they privately owned and controlled. In ancient Grecian times, nationalism began because wars were won and territory had to go to the victor. It was given to a certain region, thus city-states were born. Within these city-states, strong governments were forming. Then in the late BCs, Rome was the main conqueror, and, with every place they conquered, its territory went back to Rome. Not only were Romans defined by military protection, but by culture that they maybe didn't have before. Their system of government was as complex as the one Americans live under today. Romans were happy to call themselves Romans and know they were the best.

When Rome fell, all nationalism fell with it. People referred to as barbarians literally came to Rome with bigger sticks and took over. Religion was gone, the arts were gone, and the Roman title was gone. No one belonged to anything resembling a nation. There were constant mini-wars sprouting for a short turn at leadership, now remembered as the dark ages. They were eventually settled with lasting kings; there was one for every tiny "town". As mentioned earlier, these feudal kings governed their own territory. People did work and farmed for their feudal kings, otherwise known as lords, and got protection from them in return. Many kings adopted Christianity (after receiving money from the church to do so) and forced their subjects to do the same. Soon, the church held most of the power in Europe. Just as on Roman times, the majority of Europe was Roman, the majority was now Christian.

As time went on, the kings faded into monarchism. King Louis XIV became the first monarch, and it really developed the true Nation state. There's no way you could be closer together as a country than having a single governor. It unified France because the French now shared a language, a religion, and a ruler. The church was suddenly less powerful, so they upped the ante.Not long after, it became even more apparent that the church's main objective was to gain money. Many people were uneasy with paying for things God would be in charge of doing, but with the threat of Hell, people kept their mouths shut. When Reverend Martin Luther posted his 95 Thesis on why the church was corrupt, many saw it, identified with it, and took a stand. It wasn't long til people started thinking about themselves as much as they thought about God and, since there was less of a threat of Hell, that they could start pursuing things like art, literature, and science. It was then that certain places, like Italy and later France, that would take pride in sharing their nationality because they could brag about what accomplishments had been made in their country.

Nationalism returned because people were no longer living in "dark ages".Then, in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, people truly defined themselves as citizens of a country because of the rise of technology that came with the industrial revolution. Countries were fighting over who could invent what, when, and whether it was better than what other countries were inventing. England, who was furthest along in technology, actually kept people from leaving the country to insure they were the most advanced. English could truthfully say they were better than other nations as a whole, and they were proud to say that they were from England for that very reason. When good things happen in a country, few from that country hesitate to share that they are part of that success.

More recently, nationalism is a big part of everyday life. As time goes on, it seems that nationalism means less and less. Sure, it still means something to be an American. What's also important to know in the flat world is that there isn't just competition for jobs and schools with Americans. There is also competition with young men and women from India, China, Columbia, and France. It's not good enough to be a big fish in the small pond the United States has become. One needs to be a big fish in the worldwide pond. Nationalism peeked, and it is steadily fading as quickly as it came about. What's interesting is that nationalism didn't exist in the first place because there were nothing that countries could take pride in, but nationalism is leaving as the world gets flatter because it's the world that now has things it can be proud of, not just individual countries. Nationalism is obsolete; worldism is the new and improved version.

After all of this, there is one thing left unasked: is worldism better? Many think think that the flat world is diminishing the Home-Sweet-Home, God Bless America attitude. Is this such a bad thing? Yes, it may be, in some situations, a social advantage to say "I am an American". As the flat worlds flattens even more, it seems it could be detrimental to attempt to use American nationality as a ticket to get a job. There are tons of other applicants that, though aren't necessarily American, are willing to work as hard as anyone. If an application screams "I'm American", it may seem like they're trying to use it to their advantage. It's not being American that will hurt someone. It's thinking that being American is makes them better that's going to hurt U.S. citizens in the long run. With that said, what can Americans be defined by. If it's not language, religion, or nationalism, then what is it? Who says Americans need to be defined? It's what a person is good at, their likes and dislikes, their passions that make them who they are. They don't need to be themselves in a group to be themselves. On with worldism.