‘The Banality of “Ethnic War”’ aims to debate the all against all theory of ethnic conflict. Within this piece, Mueller argues that ethnic war, in the sense of the Hobbesian theory, does not exist, and this generalized theory represents non-ethnic conflict (p.42). Mueller’s article provided several strengths, which makes the piece of literature a thorough yet interesting analysis of ethnic conflict. Mueller uses the cases of Yugoslavia and Rwanda to explore how ethnicity mobilizing device, played a role in the construction of the appropriate conditions, needed to conduct this particular form of violence (p.43).
First, Mueller highlights another perspective by another analyst, Robert Kaplan. Kaplan illustrates that with the decline of capitalism in the Balkans created “a region of pure memory” and eventually aides in a movement of ethnic, religious, and political clashing (p.44).
Within Mueller’s analysis of Yugoslavia, uses Kaplan’s justifications to illustrate the usage of nationalism, as mobilizing factor for violence (p. 44-45). This strengthens his argument of …show more content…
This is one of Mueller’s biggest strengths, he does not rely on ethnicity being the only mobilizing factor and he introduces the framework for how these identities are mobilized (p. 47, 59). The introduction of the appropriate conditions theory acknowledges that ethnic conflict is multifaceted. Secondly, the article provides is the historical and critical outlook of failed nationalism and breakdown of the state (p. 44). This analysis of insufficient nationalism and weakening of the state offers an important contribution to the greater debate of ethnic conflict. The failure of militant nationalism in Yugoslavia, as well as Rwanda, used ethnicity to unify groups and escalate conflict (p. 45-46,
First, Mueller highlights another perspective by another analyst, Robert Kaplan. Kaplan illustrates that with the decline of capitalism in the Balkans created “a region of pure memory” and eventually aides in a movement of ethnic, religious, and political clashing (p.44).
Within Mueller’s analysis of Yugoslavia, uses Kaplan’s justifications to illustrate the usage of nationalism, as mobilizing factor for violence (p. 44-45). This strengthens his argument of …show more content…
This is one of Mueller’s biggest strengths, he does not rely on ethnicity being the only mobilizing factor and he introduces the framework for how these identities are mobilized (p. 47, 59). The introduction of the appropriate conditions theory acknowledges that ethnic conflict is multifaceted. Secondly, the article provides is the historical and critical outlook of failed nationalism and breakdown of the state (p. 44). This analysis of insufficient nationalism and weakening of the state offers an important contribution to the greater debate of ethnic conflict. The failure of militant nationalism in Yugoslavia, as well as Rwanda, used ethnicity to unify groups and escalate conflict (p. 45-46,