• RenownedBalloonThief@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    1830s headline: “Indian savages caught chanting ‘death to white people’; genocide against them now considered self-defense.”

    • Amerikan Pharaoh@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it til these lungs are airless: “terrorist” is nothing more than the 21st century “savage” in the way the crackers weaponize it against people.

      • When we create, they call us copy right breaking thieves. When they kill us, they call us weaklings who can’t defend themselves. When we starve, they tell us we can’t live without the white man. When we fight, they call us terrorists. and we build something, they calls us a dictatorship regime. and just like we say in Algeria “Yetnako”

        • sevenapples@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          This reminds me of a video portraying Tencent as le evil mastermind corpo from the movies, which starts by saying how they never made something original, just copies. Then goes on to say how their version of ICQ was a) adapted to Chinese internet b) had extra features. I wonder what Chinese companies should’ve done according to him, just accept that ICQ solved chatting once and for all? Of course that’s a stupid question because he’s just fearmongering/spreading propaganda, but still…

          • Parenti Bot@lemmygrad.mlB
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            1 year ago
            The quote

            In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

            – Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds

            I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.