Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.2K

Ideologically speaking is this a dichotomy? Only two categories?

If you are not an imperialist you are by default a nationalist.

If you are not a nationalist you must be an imperialist.

I’m trying to get away from the modern terms like “globalist” which seems to be just a rebranding of imperialism. The question is; is this a true dichotomy or is there an alternative?

Ideologically speaking is this a dichotomy? Only two categories? If you are not an imperialist you are by default a nationalist. If you are not a nationalist you must be an imperialist. I’m trying to get away from the modern terms like “globalist” which seems to be just a rebranding of imperialism. The question is; is this a true dichotomy or is there an alternative?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (5).
[–] • 0 pt

To use the modern example; I think India and Britain both suffered.

Both the nations suffering an imperial overlord and the nation lording must lose their sense of identity to become part of the endeavor. The affair is naturally detrimental to both the oppressor and the oppressed.

It seems to me that the two states of being are mutually exclusive. The best fight against nationalism is imperialism. And the best way to crush imperialism nationalism. The two states of being cannot exist in the same place for much more than a very limited amount of time.

It seems like every historic example has state actors falling into one category or the other with no other options.