As someone from the U.S., given the history we know about the Trail of Tears and trying to erase Native Americans from existence, this isn’t surprising in the least. Sad, yes, but not surprising.
Yep we boned it, learn from us and be better.
I hate to tell you this, but basically every country has the same story, except the very young. They don’t need to learn from our history; they should learn from their own.
Lots of countries committed colonialism, not many countries committed genocide on the native population and stole their land to create and expand their nation. The U.S. and Israel are members of a short list.
I was more referring to general genocide than specifically native populations–but even that there is no shortage of countries like Australia, Canada, and japan that have done as such.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples
There is a depressingly high number.
Ok? Those are the ones we were talking about on this map, youre moving the goalposts from “every” to “yeah the whole international community” which was the point to begin with. These countries get on their high horse when they have an exceptionally genocidal history.
These countries get on their high horse when they have an exceptionally genocidal history.
My point was meant to point out how countries with genocidal histories like to point out others as the ones to avoid repeating examples of rather than their own history.
You’re being straight up racist assuming it’s only white western countries commit genocides.
Lmao and there it is. Racism against the whites.
Now thats some biiiig projection
shit amerikkkans say
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples
What makes you think it’s not true? A gander through the history of genocide shows how horrifyingly common it is
It’s horrifyingly common among European countries. That’s not “every country” unless you think only westerners are civilized.
Somali, Chile, Argentina, south Africa, Japan, Korea, China. It’s horrifyingly common no matter what area.
Also, what part of genocide do you think is about being civilized…?
South African apartheid was a Dutch colonial project. There’s been no genocide in China and the one in Korea was perpetrated by the US.
Also, what part of genocide do you think is about being civilized…?
Either you have the shittiest reading comprehension or you’re deliberately misrepresenting the argument to twist it into such a comical interpretation. You’re the one that said “every country” and proceeded to link to a NATOpedia page that fails to list a whole bunch of European/US genocides and even then is short, oh, about 96% of countries on earth.
Despite numerous instances of racial discrimination in many Latin American countries (most often at the hands of CIA backed organizations like Pinochet’s government or the Brazilian junta) the fact is that none of these countries were founded on a war in favor of maintaining slavery and expanding into indigenous lands. In fact, most were founded by the descendants of indigenous peoples casting off the their colonial masters.
To say that every country has been founded via genocide is to imply this is just a normal, unavoidable thing, which is genocide apologia. I wish westerners would stop whitewashing their Nazi ass societies like smearing the rest of us is a good alternative to doing something about the legacy of violence you were raised by.
“everyone else does it to!” Is always the favourite defence of abusers
…wait, you thought this was a defense? I’m sorry, perhaps I worded it poorly then.
If you weren’t defending it, in would say you definitely worded it poorly
UN General Assembly resolution on “combatting the glorificarion of Nazism, neo-Nazism […] Contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and memes made with mematic”
This seems a bit too convenient a spread to be as simple as that. The resolution very likely was phrased in a loaded way or had some bit that was dubious. Seeing as the second red one is Ukraine and all of the west is yellow, while Russia, Iran, China, India etc are green, there very likely is context that isn’t being given to us, either intentionally or by accident.
Edit: With Russia, China, India, especially, I mean their adventures with oppression of minorities and unequality in general between cultural groups or heritages. I’m not saying the West is without fault or anything, but clearly the ones voting green are neither. They probably wouldn’t vote against their own alignments here unless it’s just word salad without meaning or responsibilities. Which is something I’m confident would lead a lot of Europe at least not accept it because it’s just a watered down version of something actually desirable.
Whataboutism
I think you dont know what that means
Lol. Don’t worry, I know that, in practice, it just means “any critism of the West”
Always the same map.
Having a metropolis is not exempt from being under oppression.
Would you show pictures of skyscrapers in the middle east to compare its human rights?
Because the people living in the many apartment towers in the top image aren’t being targeted in a literal Final Solution supported by the exact same powers that cry crocodile tears over made-up claims of “genocide in Xinjiang”.
Also the Uyghurs living in Xinjiang are Chinese citizens, meaning the accusation of colonisation falls flat on its face.
Death to ameriKKKa, Death to piSSrael
The accusation wasn’t human rights abuses, the accusation was genocide.
The propaganda trick here is to throw out a henious story, completely fail to back it up with evidence, then gradually retreat to a far less damning accusation that’s essentially impossible to disprove. The smear sticks with most people and you then see how much of the lie you can get away with depending on the crowd.
Most Marxist-Leninists are skeptical of the Uyghur genocide narrative because the scant evidence we’re given comes from spurious sources like Adrian Zenz and an Australian weapons makers think tank called the ASPI. We’re also well-versed in the American empire’s history of hurling manufactured atrocity propaganda at its geopolitical rivals.
Ignore the photographs of Xinjiang and Gaza. Just look at the maps to the left. They show that the only countries against China on the Uyghur issue are the exact same colonizing countries which are trying to subjugate the Global South on every other issue. We think this isn’t a coincidence.
Under oppression of what? Of CIA-backed terrorist attacks being suppressed? Oh the huge manatee.
Canada abstained? What the fuck, hosers?
Edit: wait all/most of Europe as well? WTF
As a Canadian, Canada has way more Nazis than people realize and the broader government tends pretend we don’t have a Nazi problem while certain politicians are full on embracing them (just look at Danielle Smith). It’s not as bad as in the US, but that’s a really low bar and isn’t exactly praiseworthy.
It’s amazing how Canada giving a standing ovation to a literal SS member has been so quickly memory holed.
Canada has a large diaspora of Ukrainian Nazi sympathizers. They famously gave a Ukrainian Nazi a standing ovation in parliament.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/canada-speaker-apologizes-ukraine-nazi-veteran-honored-rcna117125
Because it’s a Russian sponsored resolution.
Because they’re US puppets
Got a source for that?
Nope, but it’s pretty obvious if Ukraine was one of the only two countries to vote against.
And another guy, who’s actually read it, pointed out that it equates tearing down soviet monuments with Nazism.
For a decade, Russia has submitted a text denouncing the ‘glorification of Nazism’
In the context of the war in Ukraine – and with Russia justifying its invasion, which began on 24 February, by the desire to “denazify” the country – many states that had previously abstained decided to vote against the resolution
In its explanation of the vote, the European Union recalled that it had been advocating “for years that the fight against extremism and the condemnation of the despicable ideology of Nazism must not be misused and co-opted for politically motivated purposes that seek to excuse new violations and abuses of human rights.”
According to the press release published on the UN website, Ukraine called this text hypocritical believing that, contrary to its title, it was a pretext used by Russia to justify its brutal war against its country and the despicable crimes committed against humanity.
The countries opposing the resolution emphasize at every turn that they do not in any way condone the Third Reich. “We reaffirm our strongest condemnation of all forms of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,” Ukraine insisted in 2019, while recalling that 8 million Ukrainians died in the Nazi offensive.
Before the vote, Australia managed to get an amendment to the draft resolution adopted (63 votes in favor, 23 against and 65 abstentions) inserting a new paragraph in which the General Assembly “notes with alarm that the Russian Federation has sought to justify its territorial aggression against Ukraine on the purported basis of eliminating neo-Nazism, and underlines that the pretextual use of neo-Nazism to justify territorial aggression seriously undermines genuine attempts to combat neo-Nazism.”
Hmm…
Thanks for the context.
Given Russia submitted the text, and given how european countries voted, I suspect this is mostly about Russia looking for justifications for attacking a neighbour and grabbing land.
Defending Nazism or showing Nazi symbols is illegal in Germany. Holocaust denial is illegal in several european countries. Yet they abstained.
They’d probably vote for such a text if it came from another country that doesn’t “undermine genuine attempts to combat neo-Nazism”
Seems like refusing to condemn Nazism would vindicate Russia’s accusations
Seached and found that the European Union published an explanation for its vote on a similar draft submitted by 2022 by Russia.
EU Explanation of Vote – UN General Assembly: Draft Resolution on Combating glorification of Nazism
This both explain the EU’s rationale for not voting Russia’s draft, and explicitly condemn Niazism
The European Union is unequivocal in its commitment to the global fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, anti-semitism and related intolerance. Our joint fight against contemporary forms of all extremist and totalitarian ideologies, including neo-Nazism, must be a joint priority for the whole international community.
What a bunch of lying cowardly nazis
I’m guessing, based purely on the countries highlighted, that this is a Russian sponsored resolution.
There are plenty of more genuine resolutions you could’ve picked, but they wouldn’t have fit your narrative as well. Please don’t launder Russia’s lies just to embellish your point.
I’m guessing, based purely on the countries highlighted, that this is a Russian sponsored resolution.
Pretty funny how you saw that all of Latin America, Africa, and Asia voted against genocide, and your first reaction is to call them russian bots.
More that Ukraine voted against it and every single Western country abstained. Was I wrong though?
We can’t condemn the Nazis because if we condemn the Nazis people will think we’re Nazis. When people see that we won’t condemn the Nazis, that’s how they’ll know we aren’t Nazis.
“If Russia says Nazis are bad, than Nazis must be good!”
Liberal politics is just reaction.
I love it, it leads to epic blunders like having an homage to a nazi in Canada because he fought the russians.
There’s at least one Nazi who fought in the SS buried in the Arlington Cemetery in DC.
Yeah, but they just expunge that from their collective memory.
I said the resolution is bad, not the principle. You’re again misrepresenting something to further your own narrative.
So the content is the resolution is good, but its nonetheless contacted some kind of metaphysical badness unrelated to it’s content due to it being proposed by a bad guy and not a good guy.
Maybe we can get it proposed by Israel instead, then it would be a good guy presenting it because they only invade non-white countries
Russia wrote it for a reason. Think for a few seconds on why that might be.
And please stop lumping me in with the imperialist crowd. I’m anti-imperialism, but unlike some of y’all I (rhetorically) oppose all imperialism not just western imperialism.
So the content is the resolution is good, but its nonetheless contacted some kind of metaphysical badness unrelated to it’s content due to it being proposed by a bad guy and not a good guy.
I’m anti-imperialism, but unlike some of y’all I (rhetorically) oppose all imperialism not just western imperialism.
“Unlike you, I believe that all lives matter, not just black ones”
I never said the content of the resolution is good. I haven’t read it. I’m just assuming it isn’t since Russia sponsored it. And even if it is actually good, the hypocrisy of the Russians sponsoring a condemnation of Nazism is notable.
Just because a country is anti-American doesn’t mean it’s anti-evil. I shouldn’t need to explain this. I don’t know why I even tried. This isn’t worth it. You’re not acting in good faith. Drawing a false equivalency between “all lives matter” and “all colonialism is bad”. Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine is bad. Israel’s genocide of Palestinians is bad. America is bad. All three things can be true at once, the world isn’t black and white. Seriously what level of Reddit-brain must you have to try to say stuff like this.
I should really just mute this whole conversation. I’m gonna look for the button.
And even if it is actually good, the hypocrisy of the Russians sponsoring a condemnation of Nazism is notable.
Elaborate?
Russia is at war with nazis currently. Of course they have the most to gain from condemning nazism.
I’m just assuming it isn’t since Russia sponsored it.
Ok, I’m just going to not read your comments and assume they’re bad because your a westerner.
the hypocrisy of the Russians sponsoring a condemnation of Nazism is notable.
What a disgusting thing to say.
You’re not acting in good faith.
Can I ask a serious question? Who is it that told you idiots that any disagreement is “bad faith”? Because you all deploy this exact phrase, word for word, any time anyone disagrees with you. It’s your favourite thought terminating cliche.
Drawing a false equivalency between “all lives matter” and “all colonialism is bad”.
It’s a completely apt equivalence, you just don’t want it to be.
Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine is bad. Israel’s genocide of Palestinians is bad. America is bad. All three things can be true at once, the world isn’t black and white. Seriously what level of Reddit-brain must you have to try to say stuff like this.
What the fuck is this complete non-sequitor? Not to mention it runs counter to your position up to know (“if Russia says Nazis bad, then Nazis good”)
the world isn’t black and white.
Your whole argument is that Russia is bad, so anything they do is bad! That’s the most black and white argument imaginable!
I should really just mute this whole conversation. I’m gonna look for the button.
Google Satre’s quote about anti-Semites
Russia wrote it for a reason. Think for a few seconds on why that might be.
Because NATO put a bunch of Nazis in its command structure and the U.S. has backed various fascists countless times in the last 80 years, so it would put the western alliance in an embarrassing spot.
That’s like half of politics: trying to embarass your opponents into backing off various positions.
It is funny because tankie thought is literal positive reaction to anything Russia and China does. Your comment shows it is also pure projection.
“it’s funny because I’ve strawmanned you”
Yes, that is exactly what you did. Repeating it does also make it funnier.
I was paraphrasing you. Given that you were the one strawmanning, that should have been obvious.
Not at all, Marxists are quite critical of Russia, for example, for being deeply socially reactionary, or China for engaging with trade with Israel, rather than sanctioning it. Marxists don’t accept prevailing western narratives surrounding enemies of the US Empire, which anti-Marxists try to simplify into simple reaction against the US Empire, rather than actually engage with the reasoning for supporting, say, China overall fronted by Marxists.
Not at all, Marxists are quite critical of Russia
That remains to be seen. Hasn’t happened yet. But perhaps some day?
Turns out when you refuse to open your eyes, you don’t see things. What a shock.
This is deliberate ignorance. Marxists see the modern Russian Federation as a right-wing, Nationalist Capitalist country that is socially reactionary. Marxists tend to support Russia’s movements against the US Empire, which is seen as a much greater evil, and appreciate ties to countries like China that may have a positive influence on Russia reverting to Socialism, but there is much to be critical of in Russia. When you have to make up your opponent’s position, you’re deliberately lying to others, and frequently yourself as well.
How do Marxists see the USSR, China under Mao, Hoxhua, North Korea, Pol Pot, and Sendero Luminoso?
Let me guess:
USSR and Mao generally good, particularly given circumstances; Hoxhua who?; North Korea better than South Korea (and PRC even today is better than ROC); Pol Pot wasn’t a true Scotsman; and you like at least a few RATM songs.
You’re pretty close, generally. Pol Pot wasn’t a Marxist at all, though, the Khmer Rouge rejected Marxism, and his form of “communism” was deeply anti-materialist and was idealist in nature. He was also stopped by the Vietnamese. Hoxha is Hoxha. The Korea bit and USSR/PRC bits are of course oversimplified, but broadly accepted as correct.
This is a weak ass excuse collaborator. You get the pit too.
The resolution was explicitly designed to justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, an act condemned by 141 countries (ES-11/1) including many that voted for the above resolution. Voting for a resolution condemning Nazi’s, written by a Nazi regime and designed to frame their opponents as Nazi’s themself … I’ll leave it up to you on how you would view that.
If you want to frame the West as evil, you can without being misleading, ES-10/21 is a resolution drafted by Jordan calling for the condemnation of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. That was abstained on by most Western countries and voted against by the USA and Hungary. Many countries cited wanting an “explicit condemnation of Hamas” as their reason, and that is what I’d call a weak ass excuse.
1·26 days agoThe first instance of this resolution is A/C.3/68/L.65 from November 2013.
I did not know that and don’t know enough to respond. I’ll leave this conversation to the other guy who actually knows what he’s talking about.
Owned
I would like to encourage more people on this platform to humbly bow out and respond with integrity when they don’t know versus the “20 replies of arguments” that drown out the conversation. You might be correct but I think your response is in poor form (unless we’re just celebrating being the lowest parts of social media).
And all it took was someone responding with actual information, instead of 20 people responding with a straw man attack.
You admitted you never even read the resolution in the first place, and just assumed it based on “Russia bad”. No one strawmanned you, you just shout the name of random fallacies as a thought terminating cliche
Not knowing enough to respond never stopped you before, given you were making claims about the content of a resolution you admitted you didn’t know the content of
I think its more likely that the abstaining countries rely on America for trade or military in some way and don’t want to aggravate them politically but clearly aren’t willing to vote alongside them.
Or, as the other (better informed) guy said. This resolution equates tearing down soviet monuments to be Nazism.
That by extension means it equates Ukraine (the country partially occupied and fraudulently annexed by Russia) with Nazism. Countries which respect Ukraine’s sovereignty (and have enough skepticism of Russia to read more than the title) wouldn’t want to vote against (because of the title) but also wouldn’t want to vote in favor.
Tearing down monuments to WW2 veterans who fought against the Nazis certainly suggests a certain affinity with the Nazis.
It doesn’t. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Monuments that glorify Soviets might be torn down for a plethora of reasons that don’t have anything to do with nazism and have a lot to do with Soviet atrocities.
I’m comfortable to say people tearing down memorials to the soldiers who faught against the Nazis to replace them with memorials to the people who fought for the Nazis makes you a Nazi.
Feddit continuing not to beat the charges.
Keep spreading Russian propaganda if it makes you happy. Still doesn’t mean you’re right.
“Russian propaganda!” is the BlueMAGA equivalent of “fake news!”
Says the user spreading g*rman propaganda
Note that Crimea is not counted as Ukrainian in this map. Makes you wonder.
Its a normal map not a “what the burgers would like to have” map
Wasn’t that UN resolution’s one of the definitions of Nazism, that “the belief that the Ukrainian language and people are not a Leninist fabrication, to break the unity of the Russian empire”?
Not as far as i can see.
