You're jumping to conclusions. I see where you're coming from, I might've been more explicit about what exactly I was talking about, so my bad ig. I wasn't talking about Fanon in the first place. More over, I wasn't talking about any book author/philosopher in particular. My logic still applies even to Fanon tho, as, first, he had unique circumstances on his hands, second, our world had changed quite a bit since then too, fyi.

I can't but notice how vague your answer about the Vietnam is. I never asked about Vietnam's success as a sovereign political structure, I was asking about the ordinary people and how all of the events affected their lives. I believe I've made this much clear the first time around.

The era of national divisions eroding is something for after the end of imperialism, in the meantime a people should be able to chart their own course free from the domination of the west.

And what's the reasoning behind that statement? I've already provided my stance and reasoning on why nationalism should go ASAP. You, on the other hand, fail to point out why deimperialization is of such high priority in your worldview.

You seem to think on the geopolitical level, while being just a person, microscopic, compared to a political structure. In modern society, any drastic geopolitical change affects individual well-being only negatively, potentially yielding positive changes in this aspect only decades later, if does so at all. Modern day imperialism is nothing compared to what it was in the past, thus deimperialization is none of our concern, as it won't give any marginal positive change on personal level.