So…. Anyone want to sponsor me for a work visa outside the USA? This ship is sinking and I’m surrounded by racist assholes apparently, and I want out!! Seriously….
Getting a TEFL/TESOL certification is probably easiest way to go about it. Most countries require a bachelor’s degree to be there on a work visa outside of some circumstances. It still wont be “easy” but itll be easier than trying to sell a skillset thats redundant in a EFL country. Beware of scams and look for accreditation
Condemning it is not a crime in the UK.
It’s funny because it’s the same map as all the “Free world vs unfree world” maps
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
Under oppression of what? Of CIA-backed terrorist attacks being suppressed? Oh the huge manatee.
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.
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.
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.
Note that Crimea is not counted as Ukrainian in this map. Makes you wonder.
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.
Stalin was a Nazi ally from 1939 to 1941.
Incorrect, and it’s people saying things like this that is why we should combat efforts to rewrite history.
They divided Poland between them.
And Poland and Germany divided Czechoslovakia between them. Were they allies too?
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!”
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.
The 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
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
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).
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
“If Russia says Nazis are bad, than Nazis must be good!”
Liberal politics is just reaction.
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.
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
You are correct, see my other comment.
If you read the resolution and the answers of national governments why they abstained, the answer is found in points 4 and 14 of the resolution, where everyone who fought against the anti-Hitler coalition is condemned and equivocated with nazi-sympathisers. This does include people who opportunistically fought againt the Red Army in the baltic states and Ukraine for national liberation from the USSR, but not necessarily on the german side.
This resolution is a veiled attemp to paint even the people who fought against Russia for freedom from the USSR but not for Germany as part of the Nazi movements in Soviet states that did fight for Germany.
“The resolution is bad because it condemns people who fought alongside the Nazis to genocide the USSR.”
Not beating the Nazi allegations.
“People who fought for freedom from the USSR were genociding it.”
This is just the European equivelant of defending the confederates, except the confederates weren’t allied with the literal Nazis.
It is funny because tankie thought is literal positive reaction to anything Russia and China does. Your comment shows it is also pure projection.
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.
“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.
“If Russia says combating the glorification of Nazis are bad, they might be using too many modifiers.”
fyp
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.
He was right though…
More that Ukraine voted against it and every single Western country abstained. Was I wrong though?
You would be correct: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1654458?ln=en&v=pdf
At the 44th meeting, on 6 November, the representative of the Russian
Federation, on behalf of Algeria, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia
(Plurinational State of), Burundi, China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,
Eritrea, Kazakhstan, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mali, Myanmar,
Nicaragua, the Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, the Sudan, the Syrian
Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam
and Zimbabwe, introduced a draft resolution […]At the [48th] meeting, the representative of the Russian Federation made a statement.
Also at the same meeting, statements were made by the representatives of Kyrgyzstan (on behalf of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, composed of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), Belarus, the Russian Federation and South Africa.
Lol stay stupid patriot
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.
It is introduced by Russia and the main problem seems to be that any sort of collaborator with any sort of Nazi organization is considered to be jus the same. The problem with that is, that a number of anti Soviet groups did that as well, which now are seen as heros for their fight for independence of some formerly Soviet countries. That is particularily true for Ukraine, as Stalin did commit mass murder only a few years before the Nazis did invade Ukraine. Ukraine was also occupied by German forces in WW1 and although it was an occupation Stalin was seen as worse. So a lot of them were initially rather happy about it. That quickly changed though.
“The problem with the resolution is that it says Nazis are bad, even when they’re killing Russians!”
The fact that Nazi collaborators are seen as heroes is a problem. The Communists were in no way comparable in evil to the Nazis, the Communists were a massive force for progress as compared to their peers, while the Nazis invented industrialized mass murder. Read Blackshirts and Reds by Dr. Michael Parenti. Further, the majority of Ukrainians actually believe the breakup of the USSR was a bad thing.
The reason is simple, transitioning from Socialism to Capitalism resulted in an estimated 7 million excess deaths globally, a huge spike in poverty and wealth inequality, destruction of safety nets, and a rise in far-right nationalists directly funded and supported by the West. This is why Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera are seeing resurging popularity in Ukraine, and this is a bad thing.
Further, the 1930s famine in Ukraine was by no means an intentional mass murder, such claims originate with the Nazis trying to discredit the Soviet Union. Even the Wikipedia page on Holodomor recognizes that claims of intentional murder are dubious at the most generous:
While most scholars are in consensus that the main cause of the famine was largely man-made, it remains in dispute whether the Holodomor was intentional, whether it was directed at Ukrainians, and whether it constitutes a genocide, the point of contention being the absence of attested documents explicitly ordering the starvation of any area in the Soviet Union.
The truth of the matter is that it was a horrible tragedy that got spun by the Nazis as evidence of the evils of the Soviet Union, as it was free propaganda to paint it as such by the Nazis, and useful for the anti-communist west to spread the Nazi narrative as from a Realpolitik perspective any means of discrediting Socialism was a good means. This is further affirmed by the openining of the Soviet Archives and the wealth of information confirmed and denied by them.
So the Holodomor was a sign of progress?
Also the Great Purge was not mass murder?
Just saying there were reasons for a lot of people to not like Stalin. You know enemy of my enemy is a friend kind of situation.
The famine in the 1930s was the last major famine outside of wartime in Russia and the surrounding areas until the collapse of the USSR, in a country where under the Tsar famine was regular and common. As a consequence of providing free and high quality healthcare, lowering working hours, improving labor conditions, and achieving food security, life expectancy doubled from the 30s to the 70s. The famine was a tragedy, but the Soviets were also responsible for ending famine and dramatically improving the lives of the working class.
As for the Great Purge, that wasn’t something targeting Ukrainians specifically, but all manner of criminals. The purges themselves usually just meant expulsion from the party, but often criminal charges were levied against former members of the White Army, Nazi collaborators, rapists, corrupt officials, and other serious crimes. 700,000 were condemned to death, with many of those condemned being aquitted and not actually executed, though it is true that there was unfortunately excess.
You’ll want to read this excerpt from the book The Triumph of Evil, specifically page 74:
The claim that Stalin and other Soviet leaders killed millions (Conquest, 1990) also appears to be wildly exaggerated. More recent evidence from the Soviet archives opened up by the anticommunist Yeltsin government indicate that the total number of death sentences (including of both existing prisoners and those outside captivity) over the 1921-1953 interval (covering the period of Stalin’s partial and complete rule) was between 775,866 and 786,098 (Getty, Rittersporn, and Zemskov, 1993). Given that the archive data originates from anti-Stalin (and even anticommunist) sources, it is extremely unlikely that they underestimate the true number (Thurston, 1996). In addition, the Soviet Union has long admitted to executing at least 12,733 people between 1917 and 1921, mostly during the Foreign Interventionist Civil War of 1918-22, although it is possible that as many as 40,000 more may have been executed unofficially (Andics, 1969).
These data would seem to imply about 800,000 executions. The figure of 800,000 may greatly overestimate the number of actual executions, as it includes many who were sentenced to death but who were not actually caught or who had their sentences reduced (Getty, Rittersporn, and Zemskov, 1993). In fact, Vinton (1993) has provided evidence indicating that the number of executions was significantly below the number of civilian prisoners sentenced to death in the Soviet Union, with only 7,305 executions in a sample of 11,000 prisoners authorized to be executed in 1940 (or scarcely 600/o ). In addition, most (681,692) of the 780,000 or so death sentences passed under Stalin were issued during the 1937-38 period (Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov, 1993), when Soviet paranoia about foreign subversion reached its zenith due to a 1936 alliance between Nazi Germany and fascist Japan that was specifically directed against the Soviet Union (Manning, 1993) and due to a public 1936 resolution by a group of influential anti-Stalin foreigners (the Fourth International which was allied with the popular but exiled Russian dissident Leon Trotsky) advocating the overthrow of the Soviet government by illegal means (Glotzer, 1968).
Stalin initially set a cap of 186,500 imprisonments and 72,950 death penalties for a 1937 special operation to combat this threat that was to be carried out by local 3-man tribunals called ''troikas" (Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov, 1993). As the tribunals passed death sentences before the accused had even been arrested, local authorities requested increases in their own quotas (Knight, 1993), and there was an official request in 1938 for a doubling of the amount of prisoner transport that had been initially requisitioned to carry out the original campaign “quotas” of the tribunals (Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov, 1993). However, even if there had been twice as many actual • executions as originally planned, the number would still be less than 150,000. Many of those sentenced by the tribunals may have escaped capture, and many more may have had their death sentence refused or revoked by higher authorities before arrest/execution could take place, especially since Stalin later realized that excesses had been committed in the 1937-38 period, had a number of convictions overturned, and had many of the responsible local leaders punished (Thurston, 1996)."
This is why relying exclusively on Wikipedia is silly, do some actual reading. A solid rule of thumb with respect to any Wikipedia article on enemies of the US is to look at where the figures and sources come from and analyze them yourself, as you can see Wikipedia made the error of conflating condemnations with executions.
Your entire point, though, relies on painting the Communists as comparable evils to the Nazis, which is quantitatively and qualitatively divorced from reality. Again, the Nazis industrialized mass murder deliberately, and figures like Bandera sided with them deliberately against the Soviets, who were a force for good. Upholding Nazi sympathizers is a bad thing.
Your entire point, though, relies on painting the Communists as comparable evils to the Nazis, which is quantitatively and qualitatively divorced from reality. Again, the Nazis industrialized mass murder deliberately, and figures like Bandera sided with them deliberately against the Soviets, who were a force for good. Upholding Nazi sympathizers is a bad thing.
Just to be clear, as in my initial post:
So a lot of them were initially rather happy about it. That quickly changed though.
I pretty much said that Stalin was mass murderer and did not run Ukraine very well. I do not think any of what you wrote really disproves that. You do not need to be on Nazi level evil, to be evil.
We are also talking about modern day Russia introducing the resolution for a reason. Basically it would be Bandera wanted an independent Ukraine, so everybody who wants an independent Ukraine is a Nazi. If the West agrees with that resolution, then that would be used. This way they choose to be absent, as to not be in that vote.
The “lot of Ukrainians” that saw the USSR as worse than the Nazis were the far-right nationalists in Ukraine spearheaded by Bandera. A “lot of USians” were certainly upset at ending slavery, to the point of armed struggle, but that doesn’t make them correct, either. Bandera was a far-right nationalist that is supported by the modern far-right nationalists in Ukraine, which is why there’s a problem with Nazi brigades like Azov increasing in relevance in Ukrainian politics post-Maidan.
Further, again, the Soviets were unquestionably the most progressive force throughout the 20th century, from supporting revolutionary movements in Cuba, Algeria, South Africa, Vietnam, Korea, China, and more, to supporting Palestinians against genocide at the hands of Israel, to being responsible for 90% of the total Nazis killed in World War II and saving the world from fascism, to doubling life expectancies, over tripling literacy rates, democratizing the economy, and dramatically lowering wealth inequality.
Yes, there absolutely were problems faced internally and externally, and there were mistakes and excesses. These pale in comparison to the deliberate acts of mass genocide perpetrated by Western Europe and the US throughout the 20th century and today, all while the USSR was under constant siege and the Western world reaped the spoils of Imperialism.
Bandera and neo-Nazism are tied to Ukrainian politics. Nationalists are in control of politics, and the Banderites make up the majority of Nationalists in Ukraine. This is a sad reality that must be confronted, no matter what your stance on the modern Russo-Ukrainian war is, and it ties directly to Ukraine and the US being the only countries to vote against this resolution.
Either the map is wrong, or the header is wrong, because that is not Germany.
Love these colonizer index maps
Ok, why did Ukraine vote against?
Because the US installed nazi-sympathizing government in 2014: https://forward.com/news/462916/nazi-collaborator-monuments-in-ukraine/
Because when the vote was cast, Western Ukrainian Banderites were in power. Previously in this post.
It’s Russias way to keep the soviet legacy intact and justify it’s war of aggression to “denazify” Ukraine. There is a huge cultural shift of breaking off any remnants of Soviet “glory” in the country. Sadly it’s hidden behind a lot of valid points, that would explain the abstain votes.
- Expresses deep concern about increased frequency of attempts and activities intended to desecrate or demolish monuments erected in remembrance of those who fought against Nazism during the Second World War, as well as to unlawfully exhume or remove the remains of such persons, and in this regard urges States to fully comply with their relevant obligations, inter alia, under article 34 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 194
Refusing to condemn Nazis and insisting on destroying and desecrating the monuments and mortal remains of the people who defeated Nazism seems like it would only vindicate Russias accusations, particularly when you’re putting up statues to people like Bandera in their place
- Expresses deep concern about increased frequency of attempts and activities intended to desecrate or demolish monuments erected in remembrance of those who fought against Nazism during the Second World War, as well as to unlawfully exhume or remove the remains of such persons, and in this regard urges States to fully comply with their relevant obligations, inter alia, under article 34 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 194
Clearly designed to enforce Russian rethoric and force the glorification of USSR. Not surprised it’s voted against by Ukraine.
Based if true.
Yeah, how dare they celebrate fighting against the Nazis
You sound like MAGA. Create your imaginary “Trannies” and fight against it. Grow up
Fyi accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being the same isn’t an effective rhetorical strategy, it just makes it seem like you’re too stupid to differentiate between them
And you sound like MAGA: supporting Nazis.
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.
Just like all the colonial powers voting “I don’t know about this one dawg” because they know their history
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
“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
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.
deleted by creator
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…
France: Imperializing and committing atrocities in Vietnam, Algeria, and much of Africa for decades. Has strong relationship with the US and Israel. Votes with US and goes along with all its wars.
Algeria: No relationship with Israel. Votes against genocide.
Wrong on this one. France did show it can say no! (and then France had another limp president who ran back to US with its tail between its legs… Anyway.)
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.
There’s nothing wrong with xenophobia when we have no xenos to phobia about.
People, like HP Lovecraft and people like him, suffer from a crippling intellectual handicap that renders them unable to discern their fellow man from actual, factual xenos.
actual, factual xenos.
When your support for a country is so blind and unconditional that you can support genocide.
