https://sh.itjust.works/post/4274675

To this I say, no. As a community, we do not deny proven genocides, like the holocaust, or the genocide against indigenous Americans by various European colonizers, or the genocide against the Congolese by Belgium, or the Bengal famine that was carried out by the British empire. In fact, denying those genocides will get you banned, here. However: we are also aware of a tendency of nations to project their crimes onto others, and to manufacture atrocity propaganda to justify overthrowing or destroying rival governments… like Libya in 2011:

From Washington Bullets by Vijay Prashad (a great book I highly recommend)

A post from Michael Parenti regarding the destruction of Libya by NATO-backed reactionaries

A headline shortly after Libya’s destruction by NATO-backed reactionaries

The US government has been reenacting the fable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, and has been cynically leveraging the very serious accusation of genocide against its geopolitical enemies. This is the source of skepticism on Xinjiang. And this is not a new strategy, yes, the Holodomor, which everyone in the US has been taught to take seriously lately, is a nazi fabrication first spread to the United States in the works of Robert Conquest. Why would the USSR deliberately starve a fellow socialist Republic? Why would Stalin, a Georgian, have some kind of Russian chauvinist grudge against Ukrainians? Why would Lenin (Donbass), Stalin (Lviv), and Khruschev (Crimea) all expand the territory of the Ukrainian SSR while also trying to kill off the people inside of it? Why would the USSR ethnically cleanse Ukrainains while simultaneously sending food aid to the starving British colony in Bengal? Natural famines and crop failures were spun by the nazis into atrocity propaganda. Also, a state does not have to be perfect to be defended against false accuations. I think China is far from perfect, but the burden of proof is on the United States to prove its accusations (which have changed in scope several times) regarding Xinjiang. Delegations from Muslim majority nations visiting Xinjiang do not agree with the United States that there is a genocide of the Uyghur people. There is however an attempt to reeducate extremist groups like ETIM. Reeducating extremists might seem a harsh government policy, but I assure you it is a better way of dealing with religious fundamentalism than drone striking weddings or air striking hospitals like the USA did in Afghanistan.

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      1 year ago

      They won’t. I can’t get the fuckers to read the UN report, either. And good luck getting them to look in to any information on the 1932 famine that doesn’t come directly from Himmler of the OUN-B.

      • jackmarxist [any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        1 year ago

        I remember one guy who posted the UN report as proof of genocide but the report itself didn’t say anything related to genocide.

        • keepcarrot [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think sources are actually for trying to get people to exit the conversation, not actually assessing the continuity of evidence and argument.

          • Barabas [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            1 year ago

            The way that Rome conducted war is ironically a lot like how westerners believe the Soviet Union did. But the Romans are percieved as some kind of elite superforce who beat their enemies in 10-1 fights rather than simply having more soldiers in the vast amount of wars.

            • kristina [she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yeah Romans really just were very good at mass producing bare minimum equipment and throwing massive amounts of men at problems. I remember reading something from Julius Caesar talking about how the German tribes had clearly superior armor but it was of no concern.

            • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The trouble is that people look at a state and culture that lasted 2100 years in some form or other, and yet apply the same expectations to every part of their history.

              Rome winning the Punic wars with an excess of manpower, and winning 10-1 engagements against vast gallic and Germanic armies were further away from each other than we are from the Napoleonic wars today.

    • ReadFanon [any, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      Legit had a liberal, when presented with the fact that the RAND corporation (the organisation that blurs the line between a US government agency and a private organisation which essentially set war policy in the Vietnam war for having kill counts as a metric for determining “success” in Vietnam, amongst other things) had released a paper that basically said that if the US wants to cripple the Chinese economy then what they’d need to do is to initiate a limited military conflict in the South China Sea within the next few years to disrupt the shipping lanes which China is largely dependent upon for foreign trade (before the Belt & Road Initiative gets away from the US and closes this window.)

      The outcome, they determined, would be significantly more damaging to the Chinese economy than it would be to the US economy.

      I stated that this has been around for some time now and it’s not a coincidence that the US is clamouring for war in the SCS and escalating in that region as much as possible without actually firing shots (yet).

      What did the lib do?

      You guessed it! It was obviously Sissypee tankie propaganda. From the RAND corporation.

      I wish I had a fraction of the confidence of these shit-tier libs on the internet have because goddamn, the absolute balls to make the bald-faced claim that a corporation which would have extremely high US security clearance requirements and which has been directly influential over US policy for three quarters of a century is somehow now churning out pro-Chinese propaganda without anyone noticing or making a fuss over it.

      It’s absolutely ridiculous the degree of information and knowledge that we are expected to bring to bear in a discussion and, upon presenting this info, the libs can summarily dismiss it for going against their narrative as Chinese propaganda (or tankie propaganda etc.) and they do it with zero evidence and zero familiarity with something like the RAND corporation’s history and function.

      You’d legit get a military officer to burst out in laughter if you claimed that the RAND corporation was an arm of the CPC in front of them. And that’s a bad thing because I wish all US military a very unpleasant experience.

      • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s absolutely ridiculous the degree of information and knowledge that we are expected to bring to bear in a discussion and, upon presenting this info, the libs can summarily dismiss it for going against their narrative as Chinese propaganda

        Not to get too into the “is federation good?” topic in every thread, but it is able push back against this dynamic to an extent.

        If you argue against western propaganda on reddit, the libs usually far outnumber you. They feel reassured by this local superiority, and readers without a firm position can easily interpret the exchange as one crazy tankie arguing with a bunch of sensible, moderate progressives. And of course if you thread the needle just right and get some traction the mods will just nuke the thread.

        Here, libs have to argue on equal footing or worse. We usually outnumber them. And thus far across instances we’re federated with you don’t have too many mod removals of threads just because they successfully challenge the prevailing western narrative.

      • JuneFall [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I like RAND corp documents, they are openly arguing for and against things which some people think are “unthinkable”. Then they print those up and distribute them in the typical US think tanks and places of governing power as well as archives (which is were I get them from mostly).

    • aebletrae [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think this is actually a particularly good suggestion. It’s too easy to dodge with “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. It doesn’t matter if they lack evidence of presence, because they’re not trying to be objective, they’re trying to be superior.

  • emizeko [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I feel like this connects back to the liberal need to erase anyone left of them, because otherwise they can’t pretend to be the good guys

    also this:

    The kitten-burners seem to fulfill some urgent need. They give us someone we can clearly and correctly say we’re better than. Their extravagant cruelty makes us feel better about ourselves because we know that we would never do what they have done. They thus function as signposts of depravity, reassuring the rest of us that we’re Not As Bad As them, and thus letting us tell ourselves that this is the same thing as us being good.

    from https://redsails.org/false-witnesses/

    • Adkml [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Its this.

      Actually hearing from people to the left of them forces them to grapple with the idea that they aren’t benevolent humanitarian they’re just slightly less racist imperialists.

      Reddit was perfect from them because it banned anybody who would critique them from the left so they literally thought they were “as progressive as they come”

    • FlakesBongler [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      1 year ago

      Xinjiang and Ukraine (both past and present) mainly

      Because as we all know, Genocide is when other countries do things that the West doesn’t like

      Whereas if Ukrainians are systemically oppressing and killing the Russian-speaking minority in the East, that’s just protecting themselves and their national identity, which is good so-true

  • Kieselguhr [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even Stephen Kotkin (the lib), who is a highly esteemed academic historian (professor at Princeton), said what happened in Ukraine in the 30s wasn’t genocide in his Stalin biography. The only revisionism that’s happening here is libs pretending that there is a consensus about calling it a genocide among academic historians.

    All of these actions were woefully insufficient for avoiding the mass starvation in the countryside caused by his policies, in the face of challenging natural conditions. Still, these actions do not indicate that he was trying to exterminate peasants or ethnic Ukrainians.

    Stalin: Waiting for Hitler, 1929-1941 by Stephen Kotkin published in October 2017 by Penguin Random House

    Here’s Mark Tauger’s takedown of Applebaum’s Holodomor book:

    Some might ask whether Applebaum’s writing is more accessible to “non-specialist” readers. There are many excellent writers among Slavic specialists, and a more accurate account could easily have been presented in clear and simple language. Applebaum’s writing does not “simplify” the truth, it obscures it, as discussed in this review. Red Famine thus does not fit well in the existing scholarly literature, even as “popular history.” Its interpretation resembles that of Conquest’s Harvest of Sorrow, and it does use recent published sources that provide vivid descriptions of many people’s experiences in the famine. But it leaves out too much important information, has false claims on key points, and draws unjustified conclusions on important issues based on incomplete use of sources, making it not even close to the level of genuine scholarship, like Davies and Wheatcroft’s Years of Hunger. Red Famine is better characterized by a passage from Peter Kenez’s book on The Birth of the Propaganda State: “propaganda often means telling less than the truth, misleading people … manipulating and distorting information, lying” and addresses “audiences in simple language…”

    • GnastyGnuts [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even Robert Conquest amended his position after the release of the Soviet archives that the Soviet famine of the 1930s wasn’t genocide.

  • KarlBarqs [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why would the USSR deliberately starve a fellow socialist Republic? Why would Stalin, a Georgian, have some kind of Russian chauvinist grudge against Ukrainians? Why would Lenin (Donbass), Stalin (Lviv), and Khruschev (Crimea) all expand the territory of the Ukrainian SSR while also trying to kill off the people inside of it?

    My key question: Why would Stalin stop? If the Holodomor was a deliberate attempt to genocide the Ukrainian people, it would be to my knowledge the only genocide in the history of the world where the perpetrator just randomly decided to stop the genocidal actions and never again make any attempt to restart it for the next 30 years of his life.

    • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are opportunistic genocides around famines (not in this case, of course) where the attempt is taken because it is easy and not pursued further when it is difficult. Britain did this multiple times around the world.

  • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well we do, but only for Genocides that everyone, including the United Nations and prominent sane anti-communist historians say didn’t happen, or didn’t happen the way the Nazis say they did.

  • ExternalAlpaca [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    remember when we had a vote on federation with them and it was like 75% “absolutely the fuck not”

    and then they had another vote and it came out like 6 people ahead in favor and they were like “well the people have spoken, all system go”

    well now here we are

  • GnastyGnuts [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s wrong to deny wild accusations from untrustworthy actors that have insubstantial evidence to support them, tankies. Yes I believe there’s a genocide against white people in North America, do you disagree?