No, because one can pursue the interest of the people of a country without also adopting nationalist theory i.e. that the boundaries of a state should be coextensive with the boundaries of an ethnic group
Although fighting for a different rule may not be worth the bloodshed, fighting for a better rule might be a different story. And one could argue that a rule more decentralized & closer to its subjects, is more likely to be more lenient & freedom-friendly, than the governship of a distant, centralized authority.
I'd qualify that a bit, from a pacifist perspective.
Fighting wars to start colonial rule was a monstrous crime – fighting wars to end colonial rule was (in nearly all cases) a terrible (but understandable) mistake. The imperialists went away in the end, and the successor regimes were on average better than in the countries which won wars of national liberation
"Nationalism" had very little to do with colonialism, "national self-interest" had a great deal to do with it. Very silly mistake to confuse the two.
But can you form a concept of national self-interest without first establishing the idea of a nation?
I think so because one can pursue the interest of people within a state without buying in to nationalist ideas
Is it not nationalistic to look for the self-interest of a nation?
No, because one can pursue the interest of the people of a country without also adopting nationalist theory i.e. that the boundaries of a state should be coextensive with the boundaries of an ethnic group
Although fighting for a different rule may not be worth the bloodshed, fighting for a better rule might be a different story. And one could argue that a rule more decentralized & closer to its subjects, is more likely to be more lenient & freedom-friendly, than the governship of a distant, centralized authority.
I am reminded of a quote by Manuel Quezon: "I prefer a government run like hell by Filipinos than a government run like heaven by Americans."
...
hWhat an incredibly STUPID thing to say! And they name cities and provinces after this guy... Haaaay naku!!!
Colonialism was bad because it drained resources from superior civilizations into money pits.
Anti-Colonialism is bad because dumb brown people are bad at running their own lives. However, it's probably unavoidable. "Better to rule in hell..."
I can buy that colonialism had a national security component when it first started.
Genocidal colonialism (North America, Australia) was a huge moral positive. But the scramble for Africa and the rest was bad.
The first world is best not having anything to do with the third world.
I'd qualify that a bit, from a pacifist perspective.
Fighting wars to start colonial rule was a monstrous crime – fighting wars to end colonial rule was (in nearly all cases) a terrible (but understandable) mistake. The imperialists went away in the end, and the successor regimes were on average better than in the countries which won wars of national liberation
What alternative to nationalism is being impliedly put forward?Anarchy? Internationalism? Individualism?