I know this was from a year ago but seeing it again I have an urge to write a response to it. Being a historian by training, the concept of Nationalism is one that comes up a lot and so I feel compelled to write a response to the stuff said here. For the sake of clarity, I'm conflating the terms ethnic/national/racial into just Nationalism and while they're not exactly the same, in this context they're pretty comparable.
First, I need to expose certain biases in the argument against Nationalism. For one, Western society in general emphasizes individuality. However, that isn't the case everywhere. Places like Asia and South America place a greater emphasis on the community than on the individual. Is one better than the other? I'm not the one to make the call but I'm just bringing that up in trying to introduce more perspectives into that argument. Another bias is that it's harder to understand the importance of Nationalism when you live in an already well developed country. Nationalism is at its best as a motivation for people in places where their living conditions are less than ideal.
So in saying that, Nationalism isn't just blind pride in having been coincidentally been born somewhere.
I'll admit that Nationalism has definitely been abused and continues to be a useful tool for those seeking to gain power for themselves. However, it has worked as a way to motivate people to overthrow unjust regimes and to try to improve their home countries. It's really a tool that can be used for good or bad and can be a source of pride and motivation for those who want to see their home fortunes improve.
Phew, tried to not ramble too much but I do love writing about history.