Former British Colony in Downward Spiral of Ethnic Violence, State Security Impunity

[Gilrandir]

Besides this dramatically thinning the ranks of history's war criminals - almost none have ever been tried and convicted - I again notice you are more charitable to Bandera, who apparently never had the disgrace to be associated with alleged intent to defraud with counterfeit currency. Why are you so comparatively charitable here?

It has nothing to do with charity. I pay attnetion to the facts that are overlooked by the lopsided presentation. If only the good is stressed I remind of the bad and vice versa as I did with the national hero of Ukraine Bohdan Khmelnytsky. I could say a few unpleasnat words about Volodymyr the Great and Yaroslav the Wise whose portraits are on Ukrainian money, btw.

So? Is he more or less of a god or a devil than you, and if there is no answer to the question then what is there ever to discuss?

Attitudes. You may have failed to notice but this forum (as probably all social media) is about expressing attitudes.

Leaving aside the ethnic hierarchies of "white" that put Russians above all the rest and counting Jews as white (which Russians, Ukrainians, and the like certainly did not), you conspicuously erase all the Tatars, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Koreans, Siberian tribes, etc.

Like, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Siberia are famously ethnically-diverse - do you think we're that ignorant here as to take your assertion for granted?

But even if every single Soviet citizen had been a ethnic Russian with alabaster skin, and the Soviet government had no intermediaries to the outside world other than other white Europeans, that would not preclude Soviet people from holding racist attitudes that could manifest into practice if given the opportunity.

Since officially all Soviet people were brethern supposed to converge into a pan-ethnic entity one of these days racist attitudes were never shaped into "Kazakhs shouldn't be accepted to Universities" or "Let's not hire him because he is an Uzbek". Moreover, in national republics it could be vice versa with stressing prevalence of local nations over Russians.

What is the distinction you're making between racism and xenophobia here, which are generally seen to overlap almost completely? It's especially strange in light of the fact that these genocidal actions were taken against internal populations subject to the state. Stalin could not be said to be more "xenophobic" toward Kalmyks than Hitler was toward German Jews or Euro-Americans were toward African-Americans.

Classically, xenophobia is the fear or hatred of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange. Not necesserily of other race. And for the Soviet people all foreigners were supposed to be capitalists' agents dreaming of destroying the most beautiful country in the world. And internal populations were "our home traitors or foreing spies" that have to be dealt with.

Because they're the same exact ideas that had currency throughout Europe at the time, and these ideas dehumanized Africans as animalistic, childlike, unintelligent, etc.

With no interent in eveidence, Soviet people who were separated from Europe and the rest of the world by the iron curtain were unaware of current ideological trends elsewhere. Even if it was otherwise with Chukovsky the ideological pressure of the Party and severe censorship wouldn't permit him to publish anything that was at odds with the official policy of the Party especially propagating racism in children's verses.

By the way, I watched Trip to America again the other day and noticed some characters giving derogatory remarks about Africa. Was it racism? Or if they were blacks it wasn't? Just arrogance of Americans as to the poor uncultured areas? The same could be said of Chukovsky's verses, in my view.

So what would you have done about the unfair and oppressive treatment of black people at all points in the justice and carceral systems, as well as the systemic practices and conditions that leave them more liable to be preyed upon by the former? If it satisfies you to see millions of black men tormented because one celebrity was not convicted, that is a wholly disproportionate set of priorities and one I suspect you would not apply to white people.

No torments satisfy me. But I again pay attention to the facts which differ from the general tendency.

That's the whole point. If it helps, modify to slogan to read "Black Lives Matter Too."

That's a perfect idea. But I can't modify slogans of a political movement. If BLM supporters do it I would welcome the change. But would they? I doubt.

The police who have nothing to do with police crimes and moreover condemn them tend to be forced out of their jobs as police.

So can we surmise that 12%+ of cops who are black and aren't forced of their jobs nationwide are in agreement with racist practices exercised by their PDs?

That's fine, but I don't make a point of offering awfully tone-deaf and ignorant comments about ongoing social conflicts in Ukraine.

I express my take on the issue. You may qualify it as you like. Being emotionally invested impacts your objectivity (if it is attainable in such issues). Like when I criticized Trump my comments didn't seem to you tone-deaf and ignorant. How come? Not because they chime with your attitude?