::You know this area of the literature, not, apparently, the literature, on how a n(ational) identity is constructed. The discourse you are talking about is of an elite: nations are formed in the minds of elites, who engineer them, by indoctrination of a pot-pourri of regional, village, ethnic groups whose only attachment is to their livelihoods, their clans, their area. 'Against an enemy I am a Somali, against a Somali leader I defend my region, against my region's leader, I defend my clan leader, against my clan leader, I defend my family, against my family, I defend myself'. 
 ::But you still don't get the point. The people who oppose sensible edits represent a collectivist cliché, not their own personal view. A view is only personal if it shows traces of individual reflection, and most of these counter-edits are just the recycling of clichés in a tired, outworn literature. You are now focused on the literature, but you started this thread focusing on the person whose lack of knowledge disputed your edit. That is an error incompatible with wiki procedures. I know this place is often a lunatic asylum, but we need doctors to heal doctored documentation, not graduates who object to the patients, instead of seeing their views as a symptom of a general malaise, which should be the object of the physician's care. 
 ::You're an army man, with a military approach. Give me the coordinates, get me humint, I'm supplied with ammo (books). But the slightest glance at military history will tell you that a large number of battles and campaigns were futile in the first place. Every sane person on earth knew that the Iraq invasion was sheer madness, driven by ignorant ideologues: the troops went in and shot anybody in their way. For them it was personal, but they were in the service of a mad idea they knew nothing about. If everyone had looked at the idea, instead of personalising this hysterically, there would never have been any war in the first place.