You are entirely correct. People like to think the war is over, but it's still very much on going.
Gorilladrums
joined 2 years ago
When the Maori invade england and start forcing their customs on the people there, then maybe you might come somewhere close to pointing out a double standard.
But the framing is wrong. If Maori invaded Britain 250 years ago and over time, the two peoples mixed and created a well run multi racial liberal democracy where all it's citizens enjoy full rights, then the same standard applies. If a couple of politicians of British origin were being obnoxious and were disrupting the duties of the parliament, and the rest of the politicians decided to suspend them for their behavior, then I would be fully in favor of that too. Being of a specific ethnicity doesn't get anyone a pass to be obnoxious.
also, berserker brits, lol what a concept
It's not a concept, it's actual history. The vikings were a big part of British history.
We don’t have Trump because people started behaving poorly, we have Trump because there’s been half a century of constricting living standards and a wealthy political duopoly that just doesn’t care. Obama bailing out the banks rather than the people that lost their homes did more to kill civility than anything Trump has done.
These two things aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they go together hand in hand. Think about it, who focuses the most on useless shit like culture wars that are meant to stir fear and anger in people in our political landscape? It's almost always either corrupt politicians or obnoxious idiots, often times it's both. The point is that the people who are making things worse are also the people who have no manners, ethics, or morals.
Who will be ignored next?
- Sudan
- Myanmar
- Armenia
- Afghanistan
- Tibet
These aren't next, these are already forgotten even though they're catastrophes. Hell, even Ukraine is being forgotten even though it's one the biggest wars in 21st century. When India and Pakistan looked like they were about to go to war, this Israel/Palestine war was also pushed to the back of people's minds.
I think this is the just the nature of humans. People want to think they're noble and righteous, but they won't actually do anything, and the moment a new war starts they'll move on to that because it's new and we have short attention spands.
Instead of acting like an entitled brat, why don't you go start your own instance. Shouldn't be too hard, just some little technical know how and few bucks a month. Should be a small price to pay to escape venture capitalists. If you can't handle it then too bad, just tough it out.
They’re always combined together. They’re considered part of the same event.
Are you really dumb enough to not understand my point with the dates? You made the stupid argument that if there was a really a massacre then why isn't the tank man dead. This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is because it shows you don't understand what happened. The Chinese government gave the soldiers the order to massacre the students protesting on June 4th, tank man and the picture of him happened AFTER the massacre on June 5th.
the myth that people died in the square.
So let me get this straight, your grand argument to justify this massacre is that the people weren't killed in the square itself but right outside of it? Damn, you sure showed how innocent and glorious the CCP is with this zinger.
I gave more recent examples too. The only reason I went back that far is to show that the US has been shooting at its citizens from the beginning.
You literally had one single relevant example. Even if we take all the other examples you gave and ignore their validity for a second, they still had less deaths combined than the Tienanmen Square massacre.
Keep in mind, China is a lot newer of a country than the US, so it feels fitting.
No way somebody is dumb enough to think China, one of the world's oldest civilizations, is newer than the US. China didn't start in 1949.
And 1970 isn’t that much older than 1989. You act like it’s ancient history.
You don't even know what the topic of conversation is, do you? If you scroll up this thread and read what the original point of contention is, then you'll quickly realize that it's about some idiot saying that the US TODAY is worse than China. You citing examples from 1791 to 1970 shows that you either have no idea what the conversation is about or your argument is so weak that you have go that far back to find anything.
Once again, Mao didn’t kill more than Hitler. Famines are not the same as purposeful targeted genocides.
Mao's death toll is so high that his non famine deaths give the Holocaust's death toll a run for its money. Let's do some basic arithmetic:
-
Chinese land reforms: 1 million - 4.7 million
-
Government violence during the Great Chinese Famine: 2.5 million
-
Anti-Rightist Campaign: 550k - 2 million
-
Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries: 712k - 2 million
-
Three-anti and Five-anti campaigns: 100k
-
Cultural Revolution: 500k - 2 million
That's bring us to: 5.362 million - 13.3 million
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_China#People's_Republic_of_China_(since_1949)
So even if we exclude the famine, which we shouldn't because those deaths are direct result of his policies, his death toll is still either half of that of the Holocaust at best or even higher the Holocaust at worst. When we factor the Great Chinese Famine that he caused, then he's well and away the greatest killer in history.
If you want, we can say that US Presidents are worse than both if you add every death resulting from every war, and every post-war famine, civil war, etc that the US has been involved with.
Except we're not going to say because that's idiotic logic. First of all no, not a single American president comes even close to Mao's death toll. Second of all, his death toll, like Hitler's, is a direct result of his policies. These death toll figures don't include deaths caused by wars. If we included the Chinese Civil war or the host of other wars that he involved in, then he might actually top 100 million death by himself. Thirdly, even IF we did include wars, what kind of clown counts every single death in wars, including the deaths caused be the enemies, as a part of the death toll? Not only that, but including subsequent events as well? That's stupid.
Not to mention that the numbers you quoted aren’t reliable.
No, they're extremely reliable. All the estimates are provided by independent research teams and well respected academics who's full research, sources, and methodology are have been peer reviewed and are available to all who wish to see them. You just want to find any excuse to dismiss the figures because they don't conform to your tankie biases.
Their sources are dubious and usually CIA funded. Deng’s numbers are a bit more realistic at 16.5 million but still most likely exaggerated because of the downplaying of Mao’s legacy they were doing at the time, like you mentioned. US numbers are usually wild guesses and extrapolations.
Do you actually think successfully arguing that the death toll is "only" 16.5 million is some sort of win? Not only is it sad that you think that, but it's also a losing battle because that figure is well below what most academics estimate. There's another thing, simply putting saying "US" or "CIA" in front of everything you don't like doesn't discredit the validity or accuracy of those figures or statements whatsoever nor does it make the association inherently bad. These assumptions exclusively exist in the empty minds tankies who think the rest of the world thinks like them, well they don't.
People understand that despite all it's flaws, the US is still a liberal democracy that actually has freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This means that academics in the US are extremely reliable because they're independent researchers who can publish all their research without fear of manipulation or censorship from the government regardless of how the government wishes the results were or how they make the government look.
This isn't the case in China because it's an authoritarian country, and so research on touchy subjects is inherently unreliable because it all goes through the great CCP filter. Not to mention that the research on Mao's astronomical death toll isn't exclusive to US researchers. Academics all over the world have studied the same material and came up with estimates that are largely in the same range. So no matter what excuse you come up with, they simply won't mean anything because you're defending a position that contradicts reality.
successful revolutionary who freed them from an oppressive monarchy
What monarchy lmao? China has been a republic since 1912. I know tankies are ignorant, but do you seriously not know who the communists fought during the Chinese civil war? Because that's astounding levels of ignorance.
brought them socialism, cut poverty, increased life expectancy, reduced mortality, increased the spread of education and healthcare, and led them on the path to where they are now as an extremely successful country.
Literally all of this is false. Mao's policies were such massive failures that killed so many people and brought so much suffering that the country was actually on the brink of collapse. After he died, his successor, Deng Xiaoping, had to do a de-Maoization to help save the country. The Chinese economy under Mao was extremely small and stagnant, and China didn't experience any real economic growth until Xiaoping started liberalizing the economy. In the late 70s and throughout the 80s, he introduced a series of reforms that allowed people to own private property, allowed foreign investment to flow into the country, created "special economic zones" where capitalism ran free, and allowed markets to exist again. Only then did China economic rise start to take off.
You can literally see this in GDP numbers:
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/chn/china/gdp-gross-domestic-product
And yes, they were increasing life expectancy even while he was in charge.
The country went through a genocide that killed 30 million people followed by a civil war that killed 10 million people. The life expectancy in China in 1945 was 33.4 years. Literally any sort of stability would've seen a rise in life expectancy. We saw the same thing happen in Russia, Germany, and bunch of countries who exited eras of brutal war. With that being said, Mao wasn't exactly good for the life expectancy, you clearly see in the country's life expectancy graphs when the famine happened as well as when his brutal massacres started slowing down:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041350/life-expectancy-china-all-time/
And yes, the US is worse today. They are enabling a genocide. That’s basically the checkmate of atrocities.
China is arming Russia's genocide in Ukraine as well as committing their own genocides in TIbet and Xinjiang. So if we're using mental gymnastics make the US indirectly supporting Israel count as enabling genocide, then China has a checkmate x3.
Its not a competition, but the point is that these statements and propaganda always start as a way to encourage war and conflict with other countries.
These atrocities are historical facts, not propaganda, and recognizing them isn't going to start wars. What kind of idiot thinks that recognizing and condemning an atrocity like the holocaust is propaganda to start a war? If you ever get the self awareness to wonder why nobody likes tankies, this is why.
It’s why China doesn’t celebrate the Kent massacre every year or the Civil War
Nobody is celebrating this massacre you dimwit. People are acknowledging and condemning it because, unlike the US, the Chinese government denies the atrocities it committed and pretends this massacre never happened.
They don’t have military bases all over the world and aren’t constantly invading and occupying other countries,
Yes they literally are. Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, India, Tibet, and the list goes on and on.
And while China has a lot of negative points, that’s what makes the US worse that people in it don’t understand: it’s inperialistic nature.
Clearly, you don't understand what imperialism is either because if you think China isn't imperialist then you're huffing something strong.
I don't think you understand that norms and civility are a requirement for a peaceful, well functioning democracy. If you see them as a nuisance then you're either an authoritarian or an idiot. Like seriously, do you think society is going to function if every self righteous politician start being obnoxious when something doesn't go their way? That braindead mentality is literally how we ended up with Trump and MAGA in the US. It is THE first pillar to fall when on your way to authoritarianism.
These politicians can support or oppose whatever they want, it's their job to do so. However, disrupting the duties of the parliament is not a part of their job, and they know that. If a couple of white politicians in New Zealand started doing berserker rituals every time something doesn't go their way in parliament, will you still be making excuses? If not, then you hold double standards and you're racist. They're the same people, in the same country, and they should abide by customs that they set for themselves. The New Zealand parliament usually has 120, 117 members with vastly different opinions can conduct themselves just fine, 3 can't. Those 3 got suspended.
You are being downvoted because, whether you realize it or not, what you wrote is extremely racist.
If you think what I said was racist then you're an idiot who doesn't know what racism is.
These are Maori. It’s their land and their traditions, and they are being attacked for both by white, authoritarian colonists. It’s unacceptable.
Calling New Zealand of all places authoritarian is the dumbest thing I've read all day. No, being Maori or any specific ethnic group doesn't excuse anyone for acting like a jackass. At the end of the day people of all different races live in New Zealand, and that's the way it is and will be. If you hold different standards on how people of different races can and can't behave, then you yourself are racist.
Keep in mind, we're not talking about regular people here, we're talking about elected representatives. These people studied the political sphere, they campaigned, and they won elections. They understand what their duties are and what the scope of their activity should be. The whole point of their job is for them have civil dialogue with their colleagues on how the country should function. If they can't do that then they're disrupting the functions of the parliament and they should be condemned for it.
But you're conflating two different things. Someone who doesn't think about politics 24/7 isn't necessarily politically unaware or politically inactive. It just means that they understand there's more to life than politics. You can recognize that politics has more influence on your life than other things, but it's not the only influence on your life nor is it everything in life. I mean you lived through it, you should know as well as I do that even during blackouts and war, people still find ways to do things life that isn't politics.
Something this basic seems to be beyond comprehension for Lemmy users for some reason.
Not sure why you are lyao. Wikipedia has a whole article about it:
Did you even read the article? It clearly states what I stated. islam allows religious minorities that fall under "people of the book" label (aka, monotheistic Abrahamic religions) to exist under islam, not as equals but as inferior second class citizens with limited rights. This article just states that the persecution was worse for Jews in Christian Europe, not that things were good in Iberia. There are even a few historians in this very article that argue that this label for this time period doesn't actually align with reality.
You are engaging in historical revisionism. Jews weren’t persecuted or expelled in Iraq
The Farhud of Baghdad, took place in 1941, that's before the establishment of Israel (1948) and before the end of WWII (19450). Everything that I said, you could easily find in this article or any article about this event:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud
Zionism and Jewish migration to Palestine predate WW2 and the Holocaust, and the Mossad in various forms was active before 1948.
Yes, but Mossad didn't try to get Jews in other countries to migrate to Israel until after Israel was established after the 1948 war.
Zionist gangs had already committed massacres against the Palestinians in the 1930s.
And vice versa.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
The Iraqi government tried to prevent Jews from leaving. Iraq at the time was also under British mandate, it wasn’t an independent state.
You keep repeating this like a broken record, but all your doing is demonstrating your ignorance. The Iraq government forbade Jews from emigrating to Israel AFTER the 1948 war. The farhud happened in 1941, that's 7 years prior. Also, this policy last two years and the Iraqi government reversed it in 1950, this was the called de-naturalization law
Iraq at the time was also under British mandate, it wasn’t an independent state.
The British mandate ended in 1932. Again, you keep spreading misinformation that can easily be fact checked with a single 10 second google search.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Iraq
I suggest reading what Avi Shlaim
He was born in 1945, the farhud happened in 1941. I know for a fact you didn't read his memoir and you have no idea who this guy is. It doesn't take an acadmic to figure that the article you posted is propaganda that bastardized his work. First of all, his memoir, Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew, mainly talks about the events AFTER 1948 when Israel was established and he talks about how he and his family were forced to migrate to Israel 1951 (He was 6 at the time). He states that during this time, Mossad was did a bunch of operations that tried to force Jews to migrate to Israel, and if you actually scroll up and read, you'll see that I have mentioned all of these details.
The Nazis sure, but the Arab Muslims? That’s an ignorant take.
Don't call something ignorant when you have no idea what you're talking about. This isn't some hidden secret or some controversial opinion, it's literally fact. You can scroll through this list or the lists that continue it and find hundreds of examples of the Arab muslim world trying to get rid of Jews:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_antisemitism
This is also relevant:
You ignore 1500 years of Jewish history in the Arab and Muslim world and the influential role they played. And instead claim Muslims wanted to exterminate Jews based on violence that happened in reaction to Zionism
That's precisely the issue, you're ignoring 1400 (that's how old islam is) of history for a bullshit narrative that's not based in reality. This is a good example of that. The Farhud in Baghdad had NOTHING to do with zionism. You're such a dunce that you cannot comprehend that antisemtism in the muslim world has existed LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG before the creation of Israel, and I literally gave you an example with the farhud. You're not willing to accept the reality. If you think antisemtism in the muslim world started as a reaction to zionism, then your understand of this region is nonexistent.
European Jewish migration to Palestine started before WW2. Zionist violence against Palestinians was already a common occurrence in the 1930s. Zionists were already trying to lure Arab Jews to Palestine before the end of WW2.
I already covered this, so I'm going to move on to the next thing.
How does that justify the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestine? Palestinians had no say in the matter. Palestinians don’t owe Jewish people reparations for what happened to them in Egypt, Iraq or elsewhere.
The entire point why I brought these people up is to showcase how these people are victims who ended up in Israel as a product of circumstance that was beyond their control. They weren't there for "reparations" or as voluntary "colonialists" as your narrative likes to portray. This is like saying the Vietnamese refugees who fled to the US in the 70s and 80s after Vietnam's neighboring countries kicked them out, only went to North America to colonize the Native Americans. It's just an ignorant take on something that's clearly more complex.
Arabs aren’t some generic people. If you were from Iraq, you should know that Iraq on its own is diverse with different factions with varying and conflicting interests.
Yes and no. You are correct in the sense that Arab culture is diverse and the ethnic groups that were Arabized through islamic imperialist conquest still remain distinct. However, Arab is still an ethnicity itself. It's important to understand that despite the diversity, Arabs still view themselves as one. This is less true today because we've had around a century of Arabic states being independent, but after WWI, this was very much the case. Arabs back then didn't see themselves as Saudi, Iraqi, or Syrian, etc. They thought of these new states as fake and they just saw themselves as Arabs in the Arab nation. It's not inaccurate to talk about Arabs as a cohesive group, especially during the time period we're discussing, because they did think and act as one nation.
Palestine isn’t Iraq. What happened in Iraq doesn’t justify what’s happening in Palestine, even if you insist that the attacks weren’t false flags, which they were.
You're right in the first half, but you're still missing the point in the second. It doesn't matter if they were false flags, real flags, or no flags. What matters is that these events happened, and as a result of them, innocent people who done absolutely nothing wrong ended up in Israel by no fault of their own. What happened to the Palestinians during the Nakba was wrong, but what happened to the Jews in rest of Palestine and the muslim world at large was also wrong. These people and their descendants who are in Israel today deserve to be there as much as Palestinians deserve to be there. That's why this conflict isn't black and white.
In the conflict between Israel and Palestine. there’s an aggressor and a victim. A colonizer and a colonized. What happened to Jews in Europe or other countries is not relevant and doesn’t justify the crimes and genocide they inflicted upon Palestinians.
And this framing is wrong. It might be true today in the West Bank, it might be true back when Zionism was still only a movement, but from that point until today so much has happened that makes this narrative a gross misrepresentation of history. I'll give you an example to demonstrate how using oversimplified revisionist narratives is bullshit. Anatolia for most of history was split between Armenians in the east and Greeks in the West. Then the Turks came in from central Asia and they committed a bunch genocides, colonized Anatolia, and became what is today Turkey. Turkey has yet to stop it's colonization and genocidal efforts, and the effects of o all these events (past and present) can still be felt today.
Yet despite this, so much has happened in Turkey's history that trying to boil it down to "Turkey bad" where the aggressor and the colonizer and Greece, Armenia, Kurdistan, etc are victims and the colonized is just ignorant. It ignores all the wars waged on by Greece or the Kurds or Armenia or the persecutions the Turks faced or the people who were forced to seek refugee in Turkey like Circassians and Tatars. It also ignores the fact that the Turks have been there for generations or that the people and government are not the same thing even if a portion of society supports the government. It doesn't justify Turkey's past or present atrocities, nor does it justify the atrocities against it, but you can't operate from a narrative driven framework that's not based in reality. The same applies here.
he is far more qualified than someone who parrots Zionist propaganda and historical revisionism.
History is not zionist propaganda. Though I suppose to someone who consumes nothing but propaganda such as yourself, actual history does seem like revisionist propaganda. Regardless, everything that I have said can easily be verified and sourced. If I forgot to source something, then just show me the claim and I'll provide a source.
I recommend you read and watch what Avi Shlaim has to say about it. As an Iraqi Jew who has lived through that turbulent time
He literally hasn't... how can he possibly experience an event when he wasn't even born? Here's a real account from an Iraqi Jew that did actually live through event:
And yet, for all your snowjob bullshit, there is one people in chains and another people putting them in chains. I don’t give a shit what the history is. No one has the right to do that to someone else.
We can condemn the Israeli government's reprehensible actions without using historical revisionism to drive narratives. Also history matters, how else are we supposed to understand why things are the way they if we don't even bother understand what led up to them in an objective manner?
The Nazis had a long list of historical grievances against their Jewish population. You would have been right there on the side of the Nazis, saying that while you don’t support them necessarily, you fully understand what Hitler is trying to accomplish.
That's some colossal bullshit. It's the other way around. The Nazis were notorious for historical revisionism and crafting propaganda narratives that misrepresented history and boiled down all the complexity and nuance to just "Jews bad". That's why they blamed Jews for everything. If the Nazis understood history, then they would've known that their decisions would've led to their demise. You don't seem to understand that no cause is noble enough to justify dishonest representations of reality. This applies to both Israel and Palestine.
view more: next ›
I think that's a contributing factor, but I don't think it's the only one. We live in the age of social media where anybody anywhere can post anything at any time. Anybody can be a journalist and post pictures, videos, or give live updates as events are happening. In fact we have a lot of people like this from just about every conflict in the world who give us updates just about everyday. Despite this, things like wars are still treated as trends by people. When the fad gets old, people get bored and move on to the next new thing.