Memes

45704 readers

1278 users here now

Rules:

Be civil and nice.
Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml

sexy_peach@feddit.de

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

437

Forest of trees (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 days ago by geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml

347 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Credit: https://x.com/BanhmiBrieoche/status/1858838454546682001/photo/1

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Kieselguhr@hexbear.net 66 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (21 children)

Let's bracket the "was the USSR in the right?" question, and let's ask the "how brutal was the Soviet clampdown on these two uprisings?"

1956 Hungary: 2000-3000 killed by the USSR
1968 Prague: 137 killed by the USSR

How does this compare to clampdowns by NATO countries (excluding the US)?

Indonesian National Revolution against the Dutch: 100 000 Indonesians killed by the Dutch

Algerian War of Independence: 250 000 killed by the French (French estimate) - 1.5 Million (Algerian estimate)

French War against Vietnamese Independence: 200 000 dead

Portuguese Colonial Wars: 70,000–110,000 civilians killed by Portugal

Mau Mau Uprising against the UK: "Officially the number of Mau Mau and other rebels killed was 11,000, including 1,090 convicts hanged by the British administration. The Kenya Human Rights Commission has said 90,000 Kenyans were executed, tortured or maimed during the crackdown, and 160,000 were detained in appalling conditions. "

This is a non-exhaustive list with estimates. The actual brutality is not conveyed. The war crimes are often comparable to the Waffen SS.
You get the idea: the colonial powers were incomparably worse. us-foreign-policy

[+] idegenszavak@sh.itjust.works -9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

While your points are true, here is an interesting and recommended reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 22 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Oh, i liked this section

According to lexicographer Ben Zimmer,[13] the term originated in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. Zimmer cites a 1974 letter by history teacher Sean O'Conaill which was published in The Irish Times where he complained about "the Whatabouts", people who defended the IRA by pointing out supposed wrongdoings of their enemy:

I would not suggest such a thing were it not for the Whatabouts. These are the people who answer every condemnation of the Provisional I.R.A. with an argument to prove the greater immorality of the "enemy", and therefore the justice of the Provisionals' cause: "What about Bloody Sunday, internment, torture, force-feeding, army intimidation?". Every call to stop is answered in the same way: "What about the Treaty of Limerick; the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921; Lenadoon?". Neither is the Church immune: "The Catholic Church has never supported the national cause. What about Papal sanction for the Norman invasion; condemnation of the Fenians by Moriarty; Parnell?"

— Sean O'Conaill, "Letter to Editor", The Irish Times, 30 Jan 1974

Good example of how claims of whataboutism are used to try to remove actual important context from a discussion.

[+] idegenszavak@sh.itjust.works -10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

1614 is the older term in English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

And you are using it again. Because the term was coined by English oppressors, than it shouldn't true... Always the same answer to everything, my beloved dictator/political system/whatever is not really terrible, because I can point to something even worse

Let's see, "colonials are not as terrible, because what the Nazis did, and Jews were white people" Same as your reasoning.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Whataboutism is only sometimes tu quoque.

And you are using it again. Because the term was coined by English oppressors, than it shouldn’t true…

Christ- this is deeply unserious. Do you understand how the British used it to deflect from the idea that IRA violence and British colonialism were connected? The British were saying "it is a logical fallacy to talk about our violence that creates the resistance, we are talkng about how the resistance is using violence and how that means they're bad"

Always the same answer to everything, my beloved dictator/political system/whatever is not really terrible, because I can point to something even worse

Do you see all violence as divorced from other violence?

Let’s see, “colonials are not as terrible, because what the Nazis did, and Jews were white people” Same as your reasoning.

The Nazis were a colonial power, Jesus Christ, Mary, and Joseph, did you learn nothing about fascism in school?

load more comments (19 replies)