Otherization is necessary to define the self. Ethnic nationalism requires & needs the ethnic nationalism of the "other", or else it can't remain coherent. Dueling nationalisms and cycles of violence are the same side of the same coin.

This is the problem that many ethnic nationalisms find themselves in - they fare very well, even prosper, when facing another nationalism. But they can't remain coherent when facing a progressive humanistic vision that transcends nationalism

This is why today's ethnic nationalists have to invent or exaggerate enemies. They *need* them to exist, or else their movement loses coherence. Think of how badly white nationalists want "antifa" to exist - but there are lessons from my own neck of the woods in the MENA

This is why the *worst* way to face ethnic nationalists is with one's own ethnic nationalism - this only invigorates their movement and confirms their narratives. Even anti-nationalism helps them because they can say it's hostile towards their identity

Imho the best way to face ethnic nationalism is actually a post-nationalism that transcends it while acknowledging everyone's identities, everyone's stories, and everyone's right to belong under equal agency and dignity. Again, a lesson for the United States but also for the MENA

Back to that point about otherization - while otherization is necessary, the essential part is what criteria you use as a basis of otherization. Are you building a close tribe, a closed utopia for your own "kind"? Or are you building an open tribe and everyone's welcome?

Relevant - this old tweet about good enemies & bad enemies https://twitter.com/iyad_elbaghdadi/status/674067027947048960