5 ms·

> and live in only exists because some people fought hard (and many died) to defend it. Nationalism with extra steps.

• coldtea 7y ago
  The alternative option would have been slavery with no steps, so there's that. Those speaking derisively of "nationalism" more often than not do so from the vantage point of being within a free nation and having a citizenship. But it's doubly ironic to dismiss nationalism so from the sweet privilege point of being a citizen of the most powerful nations on Earth (e.g. for an American). When you don't have a nation (e.g. a colonised or enslaved people, ethic minority ill treated within an empire or a larger nation run by another ethnicity, immigrant) you very much want to get access to one.
  • brosinante 7y ago
    Of course, there's only two sides, nationalism or slavery.
    • ThrowawayR2 7y ago
      > "Of course, there's only two sides, nationalism or slavery." The choices are staying strong enough to defend the nation or slavery. You could ask the former colonies of the old colonial powers about that. Or the Native Americans. Or the former subjects of the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". Or, more recently, the Ukraine. I am a liberal but denying the importance of the military is just foolishness.
    • coldtea 7y ago
      Yes. Did you expect some magical unicorn third option? An idea like: "I'd like to live in a free country but I don't want to ever fight for it, so please don't invade it people, we're all pals and everything right?" only flies when you're already in a strong nation, that others don't dare mess with. And that's because others in your nation didn't let that idea fly in their heads.