"I live here now"
-
Hey let's switch examples and see if your logic stands up. The name Los Angeles is Spanish. Because Spanish speakers have been there longer than English speakers. If the Spanish speakers don't like the president of the United States, does that mean it's perfectly acceptable for the Mexican government to provide Spanish speaking protesters in LA with artillery systems and missile batteries? Or is that fucking weird?
A downvote is not an answer btw.
Bruh
Really telling on yourselves that yet another liberation movement reclaiming land that was stolen and an occupied and exploited to enrich empire is framed as the ultimate evil.
Fucking gringos.
-
Actually, that first guy never lived there. That first guy isn't even a real person. That second guy's grandparents were in another war on a different continent, so they're actually just small beans feeling a lot of trauma right now. It is incredibly racist to suggest Second Guy did anything wrong, and if we catch you saying as much then we'll arrest you and deport you to a prison camp where you'll be enslaved for the enrichment of some pro-Second Guy aristocrats.
-
Initially this is absolutely true! Under Lenin particularly this was very much promoted "indiginenisation" iirc it's best translated as in English. But particularly under Khrushchev and later Breznhnev this very much changed, focusing on the single Soviet identity.
They didn't really prosecute these minorities mind, just very much promoted the Soviet culture and Russian language in a large variety of ways.
Not two comments ago you were saying the soviets accelerated the Tsarist policies of forced russification. Either you know fuck all about Tsarist Russia and it's pogroms (and thus you're doing genocide apologia) or you don't know shit about the Soviet Union. Either way you should stop commenting on it and replying like you're aware of everything and that's just the thing you meant.
Unless, of course, disinfo is the point.
-
Exactly, the Nazis in the Ukrainian government are sending Ukranians into meat grinders for the profits of the U.S. empire
No no no! You're not allowed to talk about the US laying claim to huge swaths of the Ukrainian interior in exchange for another round of weapons imports. My libertarian friends told me that this is fine because the US is getting the land through contracts, which are totally bloodless and not in any way an infringement on the rights of the Ukrainian native peoples.
The above comic only applies to folks on the Eastern side of the big line. Westerners would never exploit the precarious position of Ukrainian nationalists to rob them, press-gang them into front-line combat rolls, and then snatch up all the vacant real estate once the smoke clears.
-
Page 151 has what you're looking for:
The reality was, of course, that Russian and later Soviet imperial rule was at least as brutal as that of other imperial powers. In their campaigns of Russification the Tsars imprisoned and exiled Finns, Ukrainians, and others who dared to practise their national language and sustain a national culture. The Communists continued the practice even more brutally under the guise of eradicating ‘bourgeois nationalism’. Large numbers of intellectuals, especially in Ukraine and the Baltic States, were killed or exiled by Stalin. Under his successors the executions were fewer but the pressures continued. Communist Parties, with their own local First Secretaries, existed in all the fifteen constituent republics of the Union save for Russia itself. Russians saw this as discrimination. In fact it was a sign that the Russians did not need their own party, since they dominated the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and exercised effective central control over the republican parties. Throughout the Soviet period discontent flared up from time to time in one or other of the constituent republics, and was brutally suppressed.
That's... A claim, not a source. A printed claim is still a claim ffs.
-
They come here with their nonsnense equalizing a regular war to a genocide going on right now, the comic doesn't even make sense in the situation of Ukraine, it's about settler colonialism, something Russia doesn't do
Edit: this is like coming under a post about the holocaust and talking about "this is just like the white genocide in south africa"
wrote last edited by [email protected]it’s about settler colonialism, something Russia doesn’t do
Okay, tap the breaks dude.
I'll spot you that Ukraine/Russia is the latest in a long line of proxy wars between Eastern and Western oligarchs. And I'll happily concede that Ukrainians are being swindled by their NATO "allies" while they're forced to play punching bag in order to exhaust its historical enemy. I'll even through in a "Maidan was a color revolution and liberal Ukrainians got royally played".
But the idea that Russians aren't above a little expansionism and exploitation is just... my god, man. Literally centuries of history to the contrary.
-
This is kind of interesting considering that you've claimed that the repression was most severe under his successors.
I claimed the russification process was more severe, not the executions. It's well known that as a part of destalinization the executions largely stopped. That doesn't mean the Union stopped promoting russification.
If you have a source that claims the opposite, feel free to share it.
You're making the claims, you get the source. It's really not that hard.
You don't have a source? It's ok. Don't make claims, only repeat things you checked the source for.
No investigation, no right to speak.
-
Ah yes, they are just "confused Russians" who speak a different language because of the ebul West.
In the Donbas? Half of them speak Russian natively, you dunce. About another fifth are natively bilingual.
-
I was pretty sure it was the Gaza situation.
I mean, you could throw in the conflicts in Sudan and Ethiopia, the Indian encroachment into Kashmir, the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, maybe even the 200 year old campaign to re-enslave Haiti.
Gaza's just the latest in a long line of atrocities.
-
Hey let's switch examples and see if your logic stands up. The name Los Angeles is Spanish. Because Spanish speakers have been there longer than English speakers. If the Spanish speakers don't like the president of the United States, does that mean it's perfectly acceptable for the Mexican government to provide Spanish speaking protesters in LA with artillery systems and missile batteries? Or is that fucking weird?
A downvote is not an answer btw.
The name Los Angeles is Spanish. Because Spanish speakers have been there longer than English speakers. If the Spanish speakers don’t like the president of the United States, does that mean it’s perfectly acceptable for the Mexican government to provide Spanish speaking protesters in LA with artillery systems and missile batteries?
glances at the current government of the United States
glances at the current government of Mexico
I'm raising my little Casa Bonita style Mexican flag to signal that I approve.
-
It's a complicated issue to solve, and I'm not the person to solve it but the Russian state's approach has basically been in every single way wrong.
The Russian ethnic minority and it's treatment is a domestic issue. It is not a suitable pretext for Russia to invade a country, bomb schools and hospitals, and force Ukrainians into either a smaller portion of their country or to live under an ethnostate that does not represent them. Putin has naked imperial ambitions not just in Ukraine but also in Georgia.
I'm now gonna block you, as I do everyone with pro-Russia views. Because anyone that can excuse Russia's actions is not worthy of my attention.
the Russian state’s approach has basically been in every single way wrong.
This is the nut of it and the thing a lot of folks seem to struggle with. The NATO fuckery in Ukraine notwithstanding, Putin thought he could raise the stakes in Ukraine through a full scale invasion. He was absolutely wrong to do so. He fucked things harder than a thousand pogroms in the Donbas could have done.
The Russian ethnic minority and it’s treatment is a domestic issue.
Okay, no. That's not how internationalism works. You don't look across the border at an atrocity, shrug, and say "Not my problem."
The Russian response could have been to open their own borders, build up relief on their end, and give Donbas residents a safe place to run and hide. But "sorry fuckers, should have been a Russian born in Russia" is as meat-headed as the folks who wanted to charge into Ukraine guns blazing.
-
Ok so I actually have a degree in Poli Sci and another degree in Econ, I have read quite a lot of theory, often got into arguments with my NeoLiberal professors over things like the IMF, WorldBank, how to evaluate systemic risk in financial markets, the idea of bailing out Wall Street during the GFC instead of jailing them all as corrupt, as Iceland did, once got a bad mark on a paper about conflict goods because my PoliSci prof simply refused to acknowledge that US Army troops were guarding opium farms in Afghanistan, independently sought out and studied modern Marxist econonmists outside of the scope of course work, etc etc.
I want you to explain, in a couple sentences, or paragraphs if you need to... how the situation I described above either is not settler colonialism, or is a wildly innacurate mischaracterization of the situation, or some mix of both.
Not just yell 'read theory!' at me and give me an author name.
I do not need the entire concept of settler colonialism explained to me. I am familiar with it.
If you've read and understood Fanon, you should be able to... you know, make that argument.
Succinctly.
In your own words.
Otherwise you're just a pretentious hipster, arrogantly name dropping authors and scoffing.
In simple words, in colonialism a country invades another country in the aim of taking its resources or exploiting and descriminating against its population or in the case of settler colonialism wiping them out and replacing them, what Russia has done is use military power to invade an area not controlled by it to change their ruling class, they want to make the population have a Russian citizenship and for the land to be under the map of Russia.
A citizen of an eastern Oblast of Ukraine after Russia takes over will still be the same as he was earlier, just now with a Russian citizenship. Just like how people in Crimea were Ukrainian citizens before 2014, but after they became Russian citizens, and Crimea is treated as a part of Russia (although not recognized by a lot of countries).
A Palestinian citizen after the colonialism of Palestine now lives either abroad or in a concentration camp or is dead.
Completely different situations
-
it’s about settler colonialism, something Russia doesn’t do
Okay, tap the breaks dude.
I'll spot you that Ukraine/Russia is the latest in a long line of proxy wars between Eastern and Western oligarchs. And I'll happily concede that Ukrainians are being swindled by their NATO "allies" while they're forced to play punching bag in order to exhaust its historical enemy. I'll even through in a "Maidan was a color revolution and liberal Ukrainians got royally played".
But the idea that Russians aren't above a little expansionism and exploitation is just... my god, man. Literally centuries of history to the contrary.
But the idea that Russians aren’t above a little expansionism and exploitation is just… my god, man. Literally centuries of history to the contrary.
- That is not what I said
- Why should I give a shit about you agreeing with me?
-
In the Donbas? Half of them speak Russian natively, you dunce. About another fifth are natively bilingual.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Since you started it: are you blind?
There are no Ukrainians in Ukraine
"There are Ukrainians in Ukraine"
I wasn't talking about the Donbas specifically, they were talking about the entire Ukraine.
-
Don't you mean zionist
Nazionist Ashkenazi jews
-
Kinda like the Jewish invaders in middle east
Jew bad?
-
@dessalines And yet they still fight Putin. Go figure.
wrote last edited by [email protected]No they don't lmao. You're literally crying about Russia supporting Donbas secession.
They're the ones resisting Ukraine, they've been doing it since 2014.
-
You're making the claims, you get the source. It's really not that hard.
You don't have a source? It's ok. Don't make claims, only repeat things you checked the source for.
No investigation, no right to speak.
I've already provided a source.
-
Not two comments ago you were saying the soviets accelerated the Tsarist policies of forced russification. Either you know fuck all about Tsarist Russia and it's pogroms (and thus you're doing genocide apologia) or you don't know shit about the Soviet Union. Either way you should stop commenting on it and replying like you're aware of everything and that's just the thing you meant.
Unless, of course, disinfo is the point.
Tsarist Russia started with the russification process. The Soviets initially under Lenin reversed course, but this later changed under Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev. They accelerated the process. None of this is contradictory to what I've said.
The pogroms in tsarist Russia are horrible acts of genocide, but they were fairly simply anti-Jewish in nature. They were not a part of the russification process and should be considered separate. Hence when I compare the russification between tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union, I'm obviously not taking any pogroms into consideration. It's horrible, but unrelated to the subject at hand.
-
Ok so I actually have a degree in Poli Sci and another degree in Econ, I have read quite a lot of theory, often got into arguments with my NeoLiberal professors over things like the IMF, WorldBank, how to evaluate systemic risk in financial markets, the idea of bailing out Wall Street during the GFC instead of jailing them all as corrupt, as Iceland did, once got a bad mark on a paper about conflict goods because my PoliSci prof simply refused to acknowledge that US Army troops were guarding opium farms in Afghanistan, independently sought out and studied modern Marxist econonmists outside of the scope of course work, etc etc.
I want you to explain, in a couple sentences, or paragraphs if you need to... how the situation I described above either is not settler colonialism, or is a wildly innacurate mischaracterization of the situation, or some mix of both.
Not just yell 'read theory!' at me and give me an author name.
I do not need the entire concept of settler colonialism explained to me. I am familiar with it.
If you've read and understood Fanon, you should be able to... you know, make that argument.
Succinctly.
In your own words.
Otherwise you're just a pretentious hipster, arrogantly name dropping authors and scoffing.
