So you've called me an 'armchair genius' twice in that comment - I'm sorry that I didn't fight in WWI, but I am allowed to discuss the definition of Nationalism. You have no idea about my life or my background (or my chair), so leave that out.

Sure, Post-Colonial Nationalism as a movement played an integral role in establishing independence from European powers. That doesn't change the fact that Nationalism is a European paradigm that contributed to the exploitation of these places in the first place.

The fact that Nationalism opposes foreign influence over ones own country - and therefore is an effective ideology of opposition in regions affected by European exploitation - says nothing about Nationalism's inherent militarism and codification of heirarichal power.

So yes look at Nationalism as a factor in establishing independence, but then look at where Nationalism leads after that.

Lets take Nigeria in the 1960s. Nigerian nationalism helped oust the British, cool, that's great. Then the Nationalist government inflamed ethnic tensions until Ahmadu Bello was assassinated in a miltary coup, and the following ethnic violence led to Civil War.

While you wait there for me to talk to "every nation state in the (so called) "3rd World"", maybe do some reading that isn't an internet definition written by people Just like me (whatever that means...)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/45341491

And if you come back to me, do it with argument and not random personal attacks next time, thanks