• cleoburymortimer [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    31·
    1 year ago

    lol india literally had a war of independence for centuries against the british which was what made the “non-violent” national liberation movement able to take the W. this reduction of the entire history of anti-colonial struggle in india to “gandhi led the salt march and the british decided to let india go :)” is really disgusting. of course, when it’s white christians resisting oppression (as in Ireland), then it’s justified in this moron’s view.

  • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    24·
    1 year ago

    I must confess I perhaps may be a little baby with no understanding of the world… but I will keep tweeting my dumbass opinions as that is the only thing that makes me feel like I have any sort of connection to other human beings

  • AernaLingus [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
    19·
    1 year ago

    Full thread

    Screenshot

    Text only

    (Tweets span October 7 to October 8 2023 UTC)

    Justin Schlosberg (@jrschlosberg): Virtually all human history of violent resistance to violent oppression - with the possible exception of Northern Ireland in the 20th century - is a history of abject failure.

    Its why leaders like MLK and Gandhi deplored it and Malcolm X and Mandela abandoned it.

    Dog Pope (@Dog__Pope): Haiti, Angola, South Africa, Cuba, Vietnam, I could genuinely go on.

    Justin: I must confess I perhaps don’t possess the breadth of historical knowledge to justify that rather sweeping statement… but I don’t believe it was the armed struggle that defeated apartheid in South Africa…

    Dog Pope: Maybe actually read some history before making such declarations. It’s genuinely very unhelpful.

    Justin: Thanks Dog. And remember it’s OK to express a difference of opinion without resorting to personalised attacks. I recommend trying it some time.

    Dog Pope: No, you don’t as a supposed intellectual get to proclaim a strong opinion on something you clearly had no idea about, the amount of shit I had to read yesterday from people paid to be wise has made me even more cynical, which I didn’t even know was possible.

    Dog Pope: It’s ahistorical, lazy and honestly you’ve now made people question your rigor on more than history questionable. How is anyone supposed to trust what your write when you haven’t even got a basic grasp on modern history?

  • Huldra [they/them, it/its]@hexbear.netEnglish
    19·
    1 year ago

    If infuriation could be weaponised I swear it would be over for all these “ah well, nevertheless” fucks.

    President Xi please spend all your research and development budget on emotionally powered psychic weapons.

  • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
    11·
    1 year ago

    Dudes a knobhead but I do think people are generally too quick to analogize anti-colonial struggles and anti-settler colonial struggles. It’s a lot easier to get the French to fuck out of Algeria, because they can go back to France.

  • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    11·
    1 year ago

    I know why they think N Ireland is the exception us-foreign-policy

    But without that, how would you justify that as the only violent struggle that worked? They didn’t achieve a united Ireland. No offence to the IRA or Sinn Fein obviously, but the Good Friday Agreement wasn’t considered a resounding victory in my recollection, and led to the Real IRA splinter group.

    All of human history and that’s the one time violent struggle against oppression worked? Assuming their American they can’t even remember their own bourgeois rebellion?