Obviously I didn't say that. This is a bad faith attempt to avoid my arguments.You're basically saying all ethnonationalism is exactly the same. I disagree.
I'm saying that we should resist ethnonationalism generally.
How do you distinguish "good ethnonationalism" from "bad ethnonationalism"? How do you object to this "bad ethnonationalism" while defending it in its other forms? What is the principle that informs this distinction? Or do you just pick and choose?
Either address these questions or concede the point. Don't distort them to get yourself off the hook. That's bullshit.
It creates an "in group, out group" dynamic based on ethnicity. We should resist ethnonationalism generally because of where this leads.The distinction is the one you keep pretending is a defining point of all ethnonationalism. That it directly means excluding others.
I'm yet to see you respond to this point.
India is meant to be a secular state but Modi has put Hindu nationalism at the heart of his governing philosophy.You mention Modi, but there is no formal church as an institution in India. Hinduism isn't like that. And even the ethnonationalist ideology that Modi is hijacking actually makes allowance for people of multiple different religions.
You should ask Indian Muslims if they feel excluded by Hindu nationalism.
Have you heard about the Gujarat riots? The Ayodhya mosque? Or the Citizenship Amendment Bill that explicitly discriminates against Muslims? Have you heard of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, which is the umbrella organisation that fostered Modi's BJP?
It wasn't a good point. It was nonsense.rad roo needs all the help he can get. And his point was a good one, however clumsily made - that is there is still heaps of racism in Australia.
Pointing out that there is racism in Australia makes no point either way.