Do you agree with the following statement by Arundhati Roy?

[TadBehaya]

'Nationalism of one kind or another was the cause of most of the genocide of the twentieth century. Flags are bits of colored cloth that governments use first to shrink-wrap people's minds and then as ceremonial shrouds to bury the dead.'

Yes

No

Other (comment)

[MrOracle]

Nationalism might have been an excuse, but it was never the reason. Most countries are nationalistic, but most have not gone to war against their neighbors. Wars are almost always started by a single dictator because of that dictator's own personal ego and entitlement. Look at Hitler. Look at Stalin. Look at Putin. None of them had any real Nationalistic reasons for war - in each case it was personal ambition. Those dictators often used Nationalistic excuses to justify their ambitions, but that was just theater.

[Anonymous]

Completely agreed!

[purplepoppy]

The danger of nationalism comes when you link policies to patriotism. When you label people who oppose them as unpatriotic or traitors. Link your party to the flag and all who oppose you must by definition also oppose their nation.

[Anonymous]

Agreed line by line

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

Totally agrees, yet, as someone said in the comments, without the state or gov of any kind federating too many individuals brought together... We would probably have no collective power, then no science, no medicine, no fair justice, no tech, no school, no diversity in arts.

I believe we would probably have murdered each other way more than it actually is, preventing all the good stuff the collective made possible. It's like churches to me, I'm very critical of their thirst for control but I also know they were socially useful, up to the point they become socially obsolete.

When they will become socially obsolete. Which isn't for today, as I believe we're not ready to live peacefully without gods and masters patronizing the dogs during breeding season. And I'm saying this from a standpoint where I value anarchism.

[Desi_Butcher]

There can't be a better explanation as to what the so-called leaders of some countries resorted to normalise killing people of a certain race or caste or religion. Follow their defined laws to nationalism else be known as anti-national and be persecuted for it.

[D_Bone_Steak]

I would say all of them were socialists. The National Socialists Movement for instance were the Nazi's. This includes your communists, and other welfare or social programs loving freakshow.

I'd say this Arundhati Roy guy is probably conflating Socialists for just a pure Nationalist. The Globo homos hate nationalism for a reason. It's why they hate Trump.

[avery58]

To an extent... I think it's good to be proud of country. But nationalism is too much and close to extremism, in my opinion. I would feel uncomfortable talking to someone who's constantly talking about their country.

[JohnathanK]

Nationalism is a natural form of government. Its about protecting you, your people and culture. If you dont protect it with everything, then another group of people will come and take over yours, and replace it with their own people and culture.

We can already see that happening in Western Europe right now.

[mstbooblover]

There is sadly some truth in that statement. Nationalisms in general indeed cause (d) a lot of harm to say the least.

[NathanDavis]

the root of a nation... is division

synonym of conflict...

[Darklydarkened]

Nationalism is also the cause of mass education, any semblence "human right" as we understood today, state education, state law, equality and all the other vices these types dutifully ignore.

[Makeushiver]

Anything that creates an us/them dichotomy- religion, nationality, race- will inevitably lead to genocide

[Grond21]

This falls under the category of what is called Revisionist History. It's where you revise history to be something it was not in order to fit your current political aims.

[Caroline91]

Revisionist History also involves re-examining accepted historical accounts and considering new evidence, which might alter the understanding of the past. While sometimes used to fit current political aims can't revisionist history can also be a positive aspect of historical scholarship, allowing a more nuanced and accurate understanding of past events and their impact on our current time?

[Grond21]

I guess I think that's not revisionist history as much as just a greater level of historical accuracy. Historians can disagree about what happened or the way things work and new evidence can rewrite the story. But the term revisionist history usually applies to people who are rewriting it not based on evidence but for a particular political or personal gain.
That's my understanding at least.

[shortster]

Nope. Nationalism has been present in every nation since the beginning of nations. It is neither good nor bad. Also, pride in your society doesn't cause genocides; disrespect/hatred of other people does.

[grega239]

Hitler, stalin, mao, mussolini, pol pot etc.

None of these were nationalists.

Then again we may have a different definition of what nationalism is

[nudeNhorny]

I agree with the first statement about nationalism, but I disagree with the second one about flags.

[Anonymous]

Agreed. Ukraine should just accept Russian rule like you said.

[QuestionObsession]

Totally agree with Roy. How do you know if her, are you Indian?

[Anonymous]

If true that would also suggest that people who drink water are genocidal. Having something in common does not make them equivalent. It's an emotional argument.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Ms. or Mr. Roy is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CORRECT. BRAVA OR BRAVO !!!

[qwerty2469]

Judisim is the cause of all war

[Anonymous]

There is some truth in what he said.

[The-Stud]

Indian and a woman? !

[noohair]

Things are much more complicated than that.

[TwoToTooTutu2]

Mostly yes.

[msc545]

Hell yes.

[Babygirl_S]

Whatever

[TadBehaya]

Low IQ comment