Here's Perlman's one direct quote on the matter. In other words the Continuing Appeal of Nationalism is a long essay refuting Settlers. The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism was actually an indirect response to Settlers according to friends of Perlman. Perlman doesn't make any distinction between Third World nationalism and First World nationalism. Perlman's premise is that nationalism, not imperialism, is the highest stage of capitalism, a way to perpetuate the system. He just paints anti-imperialists as the secret adherents of Mussolini and Hitler who see nationalism as a means for the primitive accumulation of capital. He can bring himself only to say 'liquidate parasites.') Perlman didn't come to this conclusion by refuting any of the arguments in Settlers. (Perlman knows how utterly deceitful that assertion is. Perlman claims to discover the true intentions behind Settlers and asserts that Sakai is trying to mobilize hatred against colonialism and imperialism for genocide. The argument in Settlers is class and nation-based and has nothing to do with race. Why are 99% of criticisms of Settlers just emotional outbursts? I've seen barely any original criticisms of Settlers that go beyond remarks (by people who obviously have not read the book) about how Settlers is supposedly racist against whites. Perlman just takes issue with the alleged motivation behind the book. In fact he almost praises Settlers as a 'sensitive' work that vividly describes oppression. Perlman doesn't deal with any of the specific arguments in Settlers. 'Continuing Appeal of Nationalism' criticizes nationalism in general and just mentions Sakai in a footnote.

The mythology of the white proletariat