> in practice the alternative to nationalism isn't universal humanism. It's pernicious individualism or strong group identification along other dimensions. Tha

> in practice the alternative to nationalism isn't universal humanism. It's pernicious individualism or strong group identification along other dimensions. That's the 'tribalism' I'm talking about. People can divide into 'us and them' over nations or states or race or wealth or whatever. I agree with the downsides and your example. But it's not intractable. We're not living in family units in caves; we've formed societies, nations, companies, bowling leagues, etc. Humans are naturally social, cooperative, even herd-like organisms and they do work together, organize, and build inclusive social structures. The very divided states of 1776 did form the United States of today, though it took a little work. The Germanic states formed Germany. Europe did make peace and form the EU. Think of the notion of "white" in the U.S.: There used to be violent, hateful divisions between Protestants, Catholics, and Jews; between Italians, Irish and Germans (and more); it was a big deal when JFK was elected in 1960 that he was Catholic. Now that all would be absurd; those people are just "white" (and the division is with black and Hispanic peopl, and with Muslims). We had segregation, and now we elected a black President (though we still have a ways to go.) LGBTQ people are now widely accepted as just people.