We're talking about different things here. I'm talking about someone like the Tunisian Mohammed Bouazizi who set himself on fire because he was frustrated at the injustice his state did him. In this sense he was nationalist because he was inflicting pain on himself to protest that injustice, and correct the wrongs his own state did him (not his nation). An internationalist might not be so inclined to die for his nation in a war that he or she feels is unjust to begin with. However they might be inclined to die in a war that supports the fundamental ideals of human brotherhood and cooperation. They are equally valid; equally rational (or irrational).
>implying that people are equally indifferent to nationality.
Ok then take this situation in libya. If you are good internationalist living in libya you should have no objection to what is going on - you should feel the need to join/help NATO which is carrying out a UN mandate by bombing your people for the whole of humanity, democracy, modernity, and so on. That is what you just said.
We are not speaking hypotheticaly here, people do not feel that way - not now, not ever. People TALK about human rights, everyone does, even colonel Gadaffi has a human rights award he gives out every year, and every third world regime will speak at the UN with a straight face saying how they are fighting a crucade against intollerance, and so on. - Internationalist humanist perspective is metaphyisical, it doesn't exist in the real world, it has no solid form so you understand how ALL of these interpretations are fake and not really real.
In a United world how would you solve the middle east crisis: one side says palastinians are victims fighting for their human rights and democracy, and another says the same of the Isrealis.
So again you return to what is real, and that is brute force and the biological struggle of different groups for supremacy.
I'm not suggesting they do, or even that they necessarily should. I'm saying that in times of peace when the security of your family and community are not directly threatened, what reason do you have NOT to work toward the well-being, not only of your own "people," whoever you might imagine them to be, but the world community as a whole?
Because it is my identity, my sense of security, my society, my future, the future of my children, etc that is at stake - these are things that are sacred and important to me by instinct. Thats the 'evolutionary' bit in terms of survival of the fittest/ evolutionary struggle for the maitainence and survival of the nation - why it is ingrained in people to view their survival in collective group terms, to think otherwise is unnatural. If you go against nature nature will destroy you - if you have these ideas you do, then that meme will not live on much longer because you will be taken under by those with the will to live.
I agree, it is. But you also have to recognize the direction of the tide of history, which is undeniably moving towards the melding of culture, race, and nationality.
I don't see a trend; ordinary people the world over act in exactly the same way as their ancestors. we are still no closer to making this metaphyiscal idea of universal brotherhood a reality after hundreds of years of existence in poplular culture. People do not fit the mould - so if you are being serious here then you need first to actually change humanity.