5 ms·

Reading the first paragraph, and the article already seems off to a shaky start. > The Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, cites V. D. Savarkar, a far-right

by lake99 8y ago

Reading the first paragraph, and the article already seems off to a shaky start. > The Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, cites V. D. Savarkar, a far-right Hindu supremacist who was accused of involvement in Gandhi’s assassination, in 1948, as his ideological mentor. I am not Hindu, and I can't stand Savarkar. However, I've never heard a justification for calling him a Hindu supremacist. He wanted India to be a Hindu country, not because he thought Hindus were superior, but more as a homeland for what he conceived as Hindu culture. I don't like this recent trend of calling everyone you can't stand a [something]-supremacist.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
notafraudster 8y ago
I do not believe there is a trend of calling "everyone you can't stand a [something]-supremacist" -- surely this is a dishonest retort to a label that is being applied very specifically to a radical nationalist. Now, if your dispute is that you think there's daylight between an ethno-religious nationalist and an ethno-religious supremacist, fine, make that argument, but let's not act like the label is coming entirely out of left field. And please be aware that if you draw a distinction between those things, you provide cover for actual [something]-supremacists, because god knows David Duke has had no problem saying "gee whiz, I'm just saying I see America as a homeland for what I conceive as White culture". In fact, the shift from "white supremacist" to "white separatist" or "white nationalist" has been a very deliberate project by white supremacists, and I suspect the same is true for (ethno-)nationalists of all stripes.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- lake99 8y ago
  > surely this is a dishonest retort to a label that is being applied very specifically to a radical nationalist It's not dishonest at all. I have noticed this trend in the last couple of years, where the likes of Sam Harris and Douglas Murray are called white-supremacists. Modi has been called a Hindu supremacist. I don't know much about David Duke, so I'll not comment about him. > if your dispute is that you think there's daylight between an ethno-religious nationalist and an ethno-religious supremacist, fine, make that argument Why does this case need to be made? There have been plenty of common counterexamples throughout modern history. Just look at the plethora of atheist Jews who are Zionists but don't believe in the concept of the promised land, or look at the formation of Pakistan, or even the split up of Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, which did not have religious motivations. It's not like I have no skin in the game. If the likes of Pravin Togadia (actual Hindu supremacist -- I've heard his speeches live) have their way, and India became a Hindu country, I'll be made a refugee. But yes, dishonest characterizations of political opponents and calling them [something]-supremacists is a trend now.
  - watwut 8y ago
    What does split of Czechoslovakia has with any of this? At least make examples that make some sense instead of invoking generaly obscure events in hope people wont catch the trick.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sbmthakur 8y ago
I'm glad that you've called out this hypocrisy and it's unfortunate that you are being downvoted heavily. Probably, the same will happen with this comment too. I'm a Hindu but no fan of Savarkar either and I genuinely believe Gandhi did a lot for India. But this labeling of anyone who was against Gandhi as "Hindu supremacist" is appalling. Ironically, Savarkar was a self-described atheist.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by lake99 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

notafraudster 8y ago

I do not believe there is a trend of calling "everyone you can't stand a [something]-supremacist" -- surely this is a dishonest retort to a label that is being applied very specifically to a radical nationalist. Now, if your dispute is that you think there's daylight between an ethno-religious nationalist and an ethno-religious supremacist, fine, make that argument, but let's not act like the label is coming entirely out of left field. And please be aware that if you draw a distinction between those things, you provide cover for actual [something]-supremacists, because god knows David Duke has had no problem saying "gee whiz, I'm just saying I see America as a homeland for what I conceive as White culture". In fact, the shift from "white supremacist" to "white separatist" or "white nationalist" has been a very deliberate project by white supremacists, and I suspect the same is true for (ethno-)nationalists of all stripes.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lake99 8y ago
> surely this is a dishonest retort to a label that is being applied very specifically to a radical nationalist It's not dishonest at all. I have noticed this trend in the last couple of years, where the likes of Sam Harris and Douglas Murray are called white-supremacists. Modi has been called a Hindu supremacist. I don't know much about David Duke, so I'll not comment about him. > if your dispute is that you think there's daylight between an ethno-religious nationalist and an ethno-religious supremacist, fine, make that argument Why does this case need to be made? There have been plenty of common counterexamples throughout modern history. Just look at the plethora of atheist Jews who are Zionists but don't believe in the concept of the promised land, or look at the formation of Pakistan, or even the split up of Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, which did not have religious motivations. It's not like I have no skin in the game. If the likes of Pravin Togadia (actual Hindu supremacist -- I've heard his speeches live) have their way, and India became a Hindu country, I'll be made a refugee. But yes, dishonest characterizations of political opponents and calling them [something]-supremacists is a trend now.
- watwut 8y ago
  What does split of Czechoslovakia has with any of this? At least make examples that make some sense instead of invoking generaly obscure events in hope people wont catch the trick.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

sbmthakur 8y ago

I'm glad that you've called out this hypocrisy and it's unfortunate that you are being downvoted heavily. Probably, the same will happen with this comment too. I'm a Hindu but no fan of Savarkar either and I genuinely believe Gandhi did a lot for India. But this labeling of anyone who was against Gandhi as "Hindu supremacist" is appalling. Ironically, Savarkar was a self-described atheist.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]