"...When the protective umbrella of taboo failed, as in the former Yugoslavia after the death of Josip Tito, for example, predictable violence ensued."   

Many others have commented here on the narrative spin in this article, so I'm not going to bother.  But this phrase jumped out at me, because it doesn't belong in the context of this article.

What happened in Yugoslavia had little initially to do with racism or religion (although towards the end the conflict also grew into a Muslim vs. non-Muslim one) but because Yugoslavia was a bunch of little countries with their own histories and nationalism, ruled over Tito.  Relatively benign though it was, Tito's reign was still a dictatorship.  When he died, Serbia (who still pined for its 'empire' of 500 years ago) tried to take over, war ensued, exacerbated by international intervention, and finally Yugoslavia broke up, back into those little countries.  

Not sure why the author chose this example. It does nothing to bolster her point.