Go Team Nationalism!

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other."
Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln included a biblical reference in his famous "House divided" speech that significantly differed from the original statement and took on a new life as a cause for struggle. According to the gospel of Mark, Jesus said "If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand." at the time reasoning against his accusers. Lincolns' use of this analogy was political, but it was also moral and sound logic. But is it possible that both Jesus and Lincoln unnecessarily limited the scope of this brilliant analogy, and therefore it's potential impact? In Lincolns' case specifically his goals were purposely limited and short term and the result has been to our long term detriment. All that he desired from this mighty metaphor was to reunite the burgeoning American empire under his leadership, one could assume his motives were pure or perhaps not.

But what is a "Nation" really? It's not real in the way that a person is real, or a tree, an animal, or the planet. Nations don't actually exist but on paper and in the minds of people, they are no more real than a spell of magic cast upon the impressionable collective conscious. For thousands of years maps were commissioned by kings and conquerors to portray a world divided, carved up and claimed by men who sought power over their fellow man. It is only in recent times that we have real images of the Earth from satellites showing us the truth, an undivided world of blues, greens, and of course earth tones. When one contemplates the true image of Earth from space it is difficult not to notice the absence of false lines, endless text, and the pastel patchwork covering most man made maps and globes. Pondering the image of this beautiful planet can eventually break the spell of these old, tired, outdated empires.

Lincolns' divided house was not a house at all, but a collection of territories, not unlike those ruled by the Roman and British empires. Kingdoms and empires have always been about collecting cities, territories, resources under one crown, one emperor, one monopolistic mentality. A city is real, a collection of cities is imagined, temporary, and can only be imposed by force and a constant threat of violence and political penalty. The city state model of ancient Greece is the most real political model yet conceived, because a "city" is a real thing with visible boundaries, not unlike a person. It is the height of reason to suggest that a city can and should be self governed, and it is equally the height of absurdity to suggest that one city should rule over others sometimes hundreds of miles away.

Todays "America" is a territorial Goliath, an empire whose great expanse would make any Roman emperors' ambition feel a sense of inadequacy. Even the smallest state in the nation (Rhode Island) would not be too small to be it's own nation on the European subcontinent, and even that would be a collection of cities ruled by one city. Imagine if (after World War II) the Soviet Union had been in a position to march into every European city and annex them into their already massive territories. This is what would be required for the citizens of Paris, Luxembourg, and Madrid to send their annual tax payments to a city thousands of miles away. But in the united states we do so relatively willingly and without much consideration of fairness. What would be a dismal humiliation to Europeans somehow seems reasonable to Americans.

France may be the primary reason that we have a "united states" model with a powerful centralized governing entity we call the federal government. When our "Forefathers" called upon the French to assist them in their revolt the French leaders would not do so unconditionally, they wanted the colonies to unite under one figure head for the purpose of clear and direct negotiations and strategies. This model was kept in place after the initial victory because the threat of a British invasion remained a constant for the formative years of the fledgling nation and the union was considered the best defense. Surely the various colonies would have preferred to be autonomous especially considering the growing tensions around the slavery issue that later erupted into civil war. The "Union" was forged as a direct result of fear of a people united only by the constant threat of a common enemy.

Sports teams teach us all we need to know about the spell of Nationalism and it's patriots. It is with the same mindless devotion to a local sports franchise that most people love their "country". Within cities high school sports teams create rivalries from one side of town to the next, within counties there are rivalries between towns, states are divided by county rivalries, and of course nationwide it is state versus state. But there are some people who move around the town, the state, or the country and for them a mindless devotion to one team is almost impossible, they simply must consider other factors if they insist on favoring one team over another. With nationalism we are taught to simply love and adore the nation who claims the territory under our feet, and when necessary to adopt the enemy of the day and even give our lives to defeat them.

Nationalism is a false model that divides the true house we all share called Earth. The unquestioning impulse of Nations to collect more territories, cities, resources, and influence is contradictory to the collective desire for democracy, equality, and justice. Someday perhaps we can wake up from this powerful spell called nationalism and begin to localize our democracy and globalize our equality. But a step in the right direction would be to break up the "unions" of states and territories under centralized governments like the United States, China, India, Brasil, and now the European Union. Not in the largely symbolic way in which the Soviet Union dissolved, but with full autonomy in each state. The people of the world would welcome smaller, more manageable nations, though the nations themselves, false as they may be, would rather torch the world than lose any ill-gotten power over the people.

It is time for the people to take back the power from the imaginary realm of nations, no man (or woman) is fit to rule over their fellow man, it is an affront to democracy, equality, and justice.