I think you mean the blood of the people who were already living here.

Isn't it enough that nationalism killed 100+m people in the 20th century, do we really need to have it hanging around our neck in the 21st?

So how much of your income would you like to part with in order to give the children of rural Indian farmers access to the same education as European children get?

Well I'm not European, but I'd be willing to pay the same amount as I'm willing to pay for the children of rural Arkansas farmers. Which is to say nothing at all. But I'd gladly hire either one if they could do the job.

What you derisively call "people who were already living here" other people might call a "community."

They might well have been a community before your glorious war dead who "established and preserved a nation" slaughtered them.

How exactly is that justification for continuing to treat people born on one side of a line as valuable human beings and those on the other worthless? Is it a moral sunk cost theory -- as long as we've committed all these atrocities in the name of nationalism might as well keep going?

They are certainly communities, and it is the obligation of the governing bodies of their communities to maximize the prosperity of the people in those communities just as it is the obligation of the governing bodies of our community to maximize the prosperity of the people in our community.

Inside versus outside isn't theoretical. People in other communities will not come to your defense when you need help, they will not perpetuate your culture and values, and they are not part of the body politic that animates your democracy.

Are you really trying to justify genocide on the basis that people who live in a community have no moral obligations to anyone outside their community?

I would have thought that reasoning went out of fashion circa September 30, 1946.

There is an intermediate point between supporting nationalism to the point of genocide and asserting that nationality means absolutely nothing.