Quote Originally Posted by Idaho View Post
In the case of systemic racism throughout the criminal justice system, the evidence is stark and clear.

You and Montmorency need to learn brevity. Both your last posts are tldr. Honestly - get an editor, learn some pith.
But in brevity much of the substance I intend to relay may be lost, and then what's the point? For example, what's the TLDR of the article I reposted? That there are a lotta white power troglodytes in the deep places of the country. That's pithy, but does it even bear saying? Meanwhile all the little details and points that give texture (at least) languish in the lacuna.


Quote Originally Posted by Gilrandir View Post
Aren't you tired of this Bandera squabble?

He was no angel, you are right. BUT: he spent most of his life before WWII in the Polish prison ans during WWII in the concentration camp. Mass killer from prison?

Then, to call someone a war criminal you should have a court's decision. The trial that could have done it was the Nuremberg trial. Neither UPA nor Bandera were found guilty of war crimes there.
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?

Evaluation is always subjective. For some people Putin is a god, for others a devil.
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?

People of other races than white in the USSR could be counted on the fingers of a hand. How can you find racist practices in a country with virtually monorace? It is like to try to calculate the number of car accidents in a village where there are no car owners.
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.

The latter needs a proof. But even if he did I don't see how it bears on racism. Xenophobia - perhaps, but racism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish...on_of_the_NKVD

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.

I offered a possible usage of Africa, you gave your take on the issue. I don't see why yours is better than mine. Even if we accept your view that Chukovsky was painting Africa as a dangerous place, why is it racist? Is saying that Queens/Harlem a dangerous place racist? I am more inclined to think that calling Africa a dangerous place is more like "everywhere outside our Soviet Motherland is dangerous".
Your take was incoherent.

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.

I repeat: as long as can remember myself a Soviet kid teachers and TV were talking my ears off with stories of poor Africans who were oppressed by capitalists from Europe and poor black Americans who were tortured by KKK. And the mission of Soviet country and all its citizens is to help them in all possible ways. So talking of racism in the USSR as a part of ideology is ridiculous.
I never referred to Marxist-Leninist dogma on paper, which as you said proclaimed the equality of people, but to culture and government in practice. Emphasizing the helplessness and subordinacy of a people and your role as their savior is not the pinnacle of anti-racism by the way.


As long as crimes and brutality are concerned it shouldn't. A murderer should always be a murderer. If you implicate race OJ Simpson isn't found to be one.
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.

I can use "black lives matter" only if after this sentence comes a continuation like "as well as other lives do".
That's the whole point. If it helps, modify to slogan to read "Black Lives Matter Too."

Can I apply this conclusion and advice to yourself?
Only if you believe everyone is right and no one is wrong.

I support it when a black deserves it. Not just because he is black. Otherwise it is like on March 8 people of the USSR congratulated women on being women.
The point being that the racist host conflated kneeling in solidarity and in protest of injustice with kneeling as an expression of fealty toward black supremacy, or of celebration of a particular person. For such people there can only be one hierarchy or another.

Men are congratulated for being men every day. Didn't they teach you about the whole premise of bringing attention to women for even a day? Not surprising you would be dismissive toward both non-whites and women, as these issues tend to be correlated.

Doesn't it reek of collective responsibility? If some policemen (especially black ones) had nothing to do with the crime and moreover condemned it why should they be fired? And can they sue the city and be reinstalled in their jobs?
Collective responsibility? As a government institution of course there is collective responsibility, and this type of excuse was laughed out of the room in Nuremberg I might add.

In a very concrete sense too there is collective responsibility, as corrupt or violent police cannot persist in their positions without the active encouragement, training, and support of other police and their leadership: the sergeants, the detectives, the captains, the chiefs, the commissioners, the arbitrators, the prosecutors, the police unions, even the city governments. Bad cops are not bad apples, they are the natural product of a whole rotten orchard.

The police who have nothing to do with police crimes and moreover condemn them tend to be forced out of their jobs as police. It's a kind of selection effect, and it's the meaning behind the Thin Blue Line.

Here's a recent article on the Minneapolis police reform process (Samurai, you might be interested in this one.).
https://www.minnpost.com/metro/2020/...ce-department/
I am not sure what kind of valid legal complaint they could have, as their agencies would only be terminated following modification of the city charter by popular referendum. The city charter currently mandates the establishment of a police force.

I have my own joys and sorrows to pay events in the USA more than a cursory attention. As probably you do about events in Ukraine or anywhere else outside the US.
That's fine, but I don't make a point of offering awfully tone-deaf and ignorant comments about ongoing social conflicts in Ukraine.

if you pick up a week old debate don't expect me to react to 29 (!!!) comments of yours
??