By "close", I don't mean having interests in common or anything like that. I mean having basic social rules in common, and therefore an easier time understanding and sympathising. That's kinda vague, I guess, so I'll give an example:
In Japanese society, group harmony and proper etiquette are the overriding concern, and the expectation is for people to put these things first. In America, personal integrity and individual expression are the overriding concerns, and the normal expectation is for people to act based on these. There are exceptions in both societies, of course, but they're just that: exceptions. Anybody's who's been to Japan will quickly realise that people in that culture act based on a different set of normal expectations than people in American culture.
Now, that's obviously an extreme example. Other societies are more similar to each other, such as Americans and Europeans. However, to say that borders have no effect on society is to deny reality. Canada, for instance, despite sharing the world's longest friendly border with the United States, has a definately distinct culture. Obviously, there's variations and subdivisions within both countries, and indeed, some countries may be entirely split, socially (for instance, many Quebeckers feel no loyalty or affinity at all with the rest of Canada, to the point where Quebec is really a country within a country). It can get complicated, and "patriotism" doesn't always apply strictly to national borders (as with Quebec, or Ireland, etc.). The common element is a feeling of brotherhood on a large scale.
You make a good point. Today, in the Information Age, borders are becoming increasingly ineffective as "culture barriers". In the days before the Internet and cheap long-distance calling, borders posed a signifigant deterrent to travel. One might visit another country for a while, but settling there is a whole other story. Since the circulation of people between countries is restricted, the circulation of their culture and ideas is also restricted.
However, with the rise of easy information transfer like TV and the Internet, culture and social norms have been able to spread without the need for people to move to other countries. In Europe, too, with the move towards unification, borders have become less of a restriction to the flow of culture.
Tell me, if I were on a cross-country bus ride and struck up a conversation with an American Satanist, and we didn't talk about religion, would I be able to tell him apart from any other random American? Conversely, if I struck up a similar lengthy conversation with a man just off the plane from Japan, assuming he spoke flawless English, how different would he seem from other Americans? I've never met a Satanist myself, do they act signifigantly differently from other Americans? On the other hand, I have met a family from Japan. There are definate differences in their behaviour, and they've lived here for a while and become acclimated to the culture.
So you're telling me that there's absolutely no difference between American Satanists and Japanese Satanists? That a Japanese Satanist who's never left Japan before, hanging out in America with American Satanists, would feel just as "at home" as he would back with his buddies in Japan? I find that highly doubtful. Sure, they would have more in common than your average Japanese and American, but that doesn't mean the cultural differences would just magically disappear.
So you hate me, then?
But that doesn't change my point. Just because you have a prejudiced dislike of creationists doesn't mean you have nothing in common with them. For instance, if your next door neighbor, a fellow Briton, was secretly a creationist but didn't tell you, you would have much more in common culturally with him, than with some guy from the backwoods of Tajikistan. I don't know much about Tajikistan, but I know it's primarily Muslim, and I'm pretty sure its culture is radically different from that of Great Britain, possibly even to the point of inhibiting communication (even if you both are fluent in the same language).
Good, because I said nothing like that. What I said was that just because a lesser good is not as "good" as a greater good, doesn't make the lesser good an evil. It
is possible to be patriotic about both your country and all of humanity, you know (just like it's possible to be patriotic about your state without being less patriotic about your country).
All foreigners
are outsiders, by definition, to one degree or another. They're part of a different culture with different rules, which makes them different. Unless of course either they adopt my culture or I adopt theirs, and then we're the same.
I've been to America, and I was definately an outsider there. It was a very mild feeling, since our two cultures are very similar. Certain things were unfamiliar, however. Certain things they thought were normal were unusual to me. Had I stayed long enough, though, I would of course have become used to those things and ceased to be an outsider.
I agree, however, that prejudice against people from different cultures is irrational and unjustified. Just because it's a different culture doesn't mean that it's inferior, just that it's different.
Sorry for the rather long and wordy post. :S
