English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Having briefly summarized the theses advanced in my “Nationalist Manifesto” (Dianoia, no. 46, 2001), I successively discuss the objections raised by my critics Pereda, Velasco, and Villoro. As for Pereda, I argue that the three “excesses” he attributes to nationalism are as well incompatible with my own position. With Velasco I agree that an important problem is the passage from an ethnical group to a nation; I differ from him when he attributes me the rejection of multinational states in general. The disagreements with Villoro are almost exclusively semantical, except with respect to his attacking the idea of a nationally homogeneous state.

¿Quién teme a la nación? Respuestas a Pereda, Velasco y Villoro