this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2021
1 points (100.0% liked)

Communism

9332 readers
33 users here now

Discussion Community for fellow Marxist-Leninists and other Marxists.

Rules for /c/communism

Rules that visitors must follow to participate. May be used as reasons to report or ban.

  1. No non-marxists

This subreddit is here to facilitate discussion between marxists.

There are other communities aimed at helping along new communists. This community isn't here to convert naysayers to marxism.

If you are a member of the police, armed forces, or any other part of the repressive state apparatus of capitalist nations, you will be banned.

  1. No oppressive language

Do not attempt to justify your use of oppressive language.

Doing this will almost assuredly result in a ban. Accept the criticism in a principled manner, edit your post or comment accordingly, and move on, learning from your mistake.

We believe that speech, like everything else, has a class character, and that some speech can be oppressive. This is why speech that is patriarchal, white supremacist, cissupremacist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise oppressive is banned.

TERF is not a slur.

  1. No low quality or off-topic posts

Posts that are low-effort or otherwise irrelevant will be removed.

This is not a place to engage in meta-drama or discuss random reactionaries on lemmy or anywhere else.

This includes memes and circlejerking.

This includes most images, such as random books or memorabilia you found.

We ask that amerikan posters refrain from posting about US bourgeois politics. The rest of the world really doesn’t care that much.

  1. No basic questions about marxism

Posts asking entry-level questions will be removed.

Questions like “What is Maoism?” or “Why do Stalinists believe what they do?” will be removed, as they are not the focus on this forum.

  1. No sectarianism

Marxists of all tendencies are welcome here.

Refrain from sectarianism, defined here as unprincipled criticism. Posts trash-talking a certain tendency or marxist figure will be removed. Circlejerking, throwing insults around, and other pettiness is unacceptable.

If criticisms must be made, make them in a principled manner, applying Marxist analysis.

The goal of this subreddit is the accretion of theory and knowledge and the promotion of quality discussion and criticism.

Check out ProleWiki for a communist wikipedia.

Communism study guide

bottombanner

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml
CaptCalhoun@lemmygrad.ml
supercooper25@lemmygrad.ml
Magpieinthesky@lemmygrad.ml
fidel_castro@lemmygrad.ml
AnarchoBolshevik@lemmygrad.ml
1
Brutality against indigenous people embedded in Anglo-Saxons' DNA (www.globaltimes.cn)
submitted 3 years ago by pimento@lemmygrad.ml to c/communism@lemmygrad.ml
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Farmer_Heck@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (4 children)

This article is about how the US and Canada are shifting the blame for the boarding schools that killed thousands of natives for generations and the forced assimilation of those people... but yes, be upset that the title alludes to DNA I guess.

It's real easy to find the author's use of the term "DNA" in the title upsetting, when you're not in the hundreds of indigenous groups who've been forced into generations of oppression at the hands of Anglos. It's a provocative title, it's meant to catch your eye. Now actually read the article, and understand that it's pulling attention to the treatment of indigenous people by Anglo governments. Treatment that Anglo governments are currently trying to deny while claiming the boarding schools for the Uyghur are the same thing.

Really think the title of the article is a problem? tell that to the Beothuk people of New Foundland, who were wiped out by settlers - it was a genocide.

Tell it to the Koroa of Mississippi, who died from European diseases and assimilated into the stronger nearby tribes to escape the English settlers.

Tell it to the Westo of the South East, who were killed off by war with the Carolinian settlers.

Or to any of the various tribes history forgot, because the murderous Anglos didn't deem it important enough to catalogue them. Tell it to the millions of Africans who were enslaved by the Anglos in West Africa and sailed into the Americas to act as a labour force. Tell it to the Palestinians who are actively being killed off by the Anglo Backed Israeli government.

[–] HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

I think it's pretty clear that DNA is just a symbolic term for "culture" or a similar concept, things that are NOT set in stone like DNA and can absolutely be changed with enough will. There isn't an oppression gene and the article does not insinuate that anyone is "born" an oppressor but they ARE born into a society that without change, will turn them into oppressors.

So no, it's not racist toward Anglo Saxons.

[–] ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 3 years ago (1 children)

Yeah I find it strange that so many ears perked up at the possibility of racism towards anglo-saxons.

[–] muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 3 years ago

The article is also very good, provocative title aside. Canadian and US politicians, and pretty much every article from the BBC or NYT have brought out every orientalist trope they can think of, and accused chinese ppl of having ingrained negative traits. Seems strange that many people are coming to defend the orientalists.

[–] gun@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)

There is a long and tragic history of white people, particularly anglo-saxons, violating the sovereignty of nations, raping, murdering, and profiteering. To say it's in the DNA, this is true in a figurative sense. But what does this wording really accomplish? When open to interpretation, these statements agitate reactionaries and make it harder to educate. It's just unconstructive.

Edit: Please notice I did not say to educate reactionaries. That's not what I mean at all.

[–] muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 3 years ago (1 children)

Having just re read the autobiography of malcolm x, I think there is some value in making provocative statements like that. Mainly, it acts as good bait that exposes the superiority complex of people who identify as that group, and forces them into either a defense (along racial lines), or an honest appraisal of their history. The only people getting offended by those statements, are not ppl likely to join the side of the oppressed anyway, because the emotional basis for their beliefs is still some form of white supremacy, however diluted that may be.

Also its an understandable reaction from oppressed groups who have been told from cradle to grave, in media and culture, that they're inferior to whites, and that the only way to be successful, is to emulate whites, the way they talk, dress, etc.

[–] soronixa@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 children)

just saw this comment and now I wanna cry T_T

so now I'm just someone biting a "bait", with a "superiority complex", someone "not likely to join the side of the oppressed", and having "the emotional basis of my beliefs" being "white supermacy". at least you considered an alternative, someone

who have been told from cradle to grave, in media and culture, that they're inferior to whites, and that the only way to be successful, is to emulate whites, the way they talk, dress, etc.

which I can't tell if is better or worse.

not to mention the one calling me a reactionary or suggesting I don't understand the pain of indigenous people. all that because I rightfully called out a genuinely racist title? you people are so fucking cruel.

a few days ago there was a thread on lemmy.ml and we all blamed sinophobes for their bigotry, but when it's reversed it's ok? we said dismissing an open source CPU for being Chinese is bigotry, and it's not an acceptable excuse that "they mean the communist party would put backdoors in it". but now "white people are genetically berutal against indigenous people" is a delicate metaphor? don't be so biased. racism is wrong, no matter the race.

edit: this reminds of a thread on lemmygrad a while back, when I explained why tiktok might even be worse than instagram or youtube (its addictive aspects) and how it can be even more harmful (by lowering the attention span to 15 seconds of esily digestable videos), but apparantly lemmygrad users believed being Chinese makes it ok somehow? like have some consistency guys.

[–] muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 3 years ago (1 children)

a few days ago there was a thread on lemmy.ml and we all blamed sinophobes for their bigotry, but when it’s reversed it’s ok?

White isn't a race, its a social construct that has come for historical reasons to stand for a group of European colonialists from a variety of countries. I'd tread very carefully if I were you, because we will not tolerate white supremacists whining about "reverse racism" here.

[–] soronixa@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago

White isn't a race, its a social construct that has come for historical reasons to stand for a group of European colonialists from a variety of countries.

I never said white is a race either. I didn't even mention white. we were talking about Anglo-Saxons I assume? even then I clarified in one of my comments that Anglo-Saxons aren't technically a race.

I'd tread very carefully if I were you

and now I'm getting ban threats from an admin of lemmygrad because we disagree over a title. why are you so hostile? did I say anything outrageous without knowing? I apoligoze if I did, but can you point to it?

white supremacists whining about "reverse racism" here.

bold claim. I never suggested, or even implied that white people are superior or any bullshit like that. as I said I didn't even mention white, you brought it up. I just said saying that an ethnic group has a negative trait in their DNA is racist. but apparantly it's a controversial take on lemmygrad.ml

and you would do me a favour if you don't classify me in the "reverse racism" crowd. I did not say there's sytematic racism against "white people", I didn't even come close to that. it was just a title.

but well, thanks for your warning, and for not banning me. I enjoy talking to you guys, just wished you would reply to me and explain why I'm wrong, instead of downvoting me. that would make a more productive discussion, and a more pleasant experience.

[–] Farmer_Heck@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 3 years ago

The Chinese author of this article doesn't care about educating American reactionaries, they care about setting the record straight. What they care about, and is the point of the article, is far more important than radicalizing the very few American reactionaries who would actually read the Chinese backed source.

It's far better to assert that the Anglo governments are being hypocritical on Xinjiang and the treatment of Uyghur, while themselves trying to cover up a long history of genocide, than it is to pick and choose words for maximum effect of educating reactionaries.

A Chinese author is pointing out the long history of Anglo oppression, that also happened to touch China and is currently a factor in PRC - HK relations, and y'all are too busy being upset that they put "embedded in [their] DNA" in the title of the article.

[–] soronixa@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago

ah, it's just getting worse. we're on the same side (at least regarding this issue), yet we can't agree on such a simple thing.

This article is about how the US and Canada are shifting the blame for the boarding schools that killed thousands of natives for generations and the forced assimilation of those people.

I whole-heartedly agree that this subject needs more attention. what has happened is beyond anything I can describe, and it hasn't even happened long ago, so the "it was previous generations" excuse doesn't work. it's hard evidence that the government and church are corrupted as hell, and don't deserve their position.

be upset that the title alludes to DNA I guess. It's real easy to find the author's use of the term "DNA" in the title upsetting when you're not in the hundreds of indigenous groups who've been forced into generations of oppression at the hands of Anglos.

how is this relevant? and how does it justify the title?

It's a provocative title, it's meant to catch your eye.

it doesn't make it ok, making racist statements to get our attention to an important thing is still wrong. I would also add that if the author's intentionwas to highlight the crime commited by North American countries, they're failing miserably, all we're talking about is the title and if it's racist or not.

Now actually read the article

I agree with the content of the article.

and understand that it's pulling attention to the treatment of indigenous people by Anglo governments.

a noble goal, but as I mentioned, it seems that they're not achieving their goal by that title.

Treatment that Anglo governments are currently trying to deny while claiming the boarding schools for the Uyghur are the same thing.

I agree, they're not in a position to lecture the world about human rights. also in my opinion, the claims that "millions of Uyghurs are held in concentration camps against their will, it's a genocide!" are utter bullshit. this article could be a great opportunity to show that these countries aren't concerned about human rights, but all it's accomplished is making us argue about its title.

I don't know what you want to achieve with the rest of your comment. but let's see your reaction if we change the title to be about another race. if someone had said "being slaves is the African's DNA", wouldn't you call it out? or would you start defending it by saying "see, DNA means history here, the writer must be trying to make us pay attention the crimes commited against Africans", "oh no, African isn't a race, so this is not racism" and "tell it to that tribe killed by those Africans!", "author is trying to get your attention, it's justified."

[–] mohamed@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago (1 children)

Is 'embedded in ... DNA' to be taken literally or is it a figure of speech?

I'd argue that it is embedded in everyone's DNA to be brutal against outsiders, and thus the statement is technically true but phrased to provoke.

[–] HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 years ago

It's symbolic for the Anglos' culture and politics.

And no, I don't think anyone has ever found evidence of a "brutal against outsiders" gene. Prehistoric humans were actually extremely cooprerative, moreso than we are now.