I take it folks saw the phrase cancel culture and downvoted?
It’s actually a fascinating article. Odessa has been at the intersection of Ukraine and Russia for ages. Lots of Russian speakers who resisted Russia etc. But as the invasion goes on, people are being attacked for speaking Russian, statues of Odessa’s most famous people torn down etc. And you can kind of see where both sides are coming from.
It’s an issue I imagine almost none of us knew or thought about, if not for the phrase “cancel culture” why on Earth are we downvoting it?
The “kind of see where both sides are coming from” is de facto support for russian genocidal imperialism.
We don’t need Pushkin statues, we have our own artists and our own heroes.
Getting rid of russian language and russian “culture” is a legitimate aim when your country has suffered multiple genocides and centuries of colonialism. Russian culture is trash and has no value. It’s like saying Islamic state culture is legitimate. Would you be opposed to getting rid of Nazis imagery too?
This is just the economist’s version of teenage edgelord posts. I would like to invite the author and their family to Donbas (this is where me and my family or from), we’ll see what he thinks about Pushkin after that.
Is this what you want to normalize? Shitting on some random people (Muslims in this case) just to make your point?
People might even be on your side but like this I don’t think you’re any better than the people you’re criticizing, dehumanization begins with language.
How am I shitting on Muslims? What are you even on about? You’re equating Muslims to the Islamic state?
You can think whatever you want. You don’t have to deal with russians, of course you’re going to feign concerns about humanitarianism.
It is easy to reject reality, engage in historical revisionism, white-wash russian crimes, when the alternative works out to be you defacto promoting genocidal imperialism. Not many people want to end up on the wrong side of history and be caught saying “supporters and participants of the Nazi regime are not that bad”. It is far easier to convince yourself that it’s really about humanitarian concerns.
Then there is the cowardice angle. Feigning concern about humanitarianism provides a nice escape valve for de facto meek and complacent behaviour with respect to russian PR campaigns (nuclear sabre rattling). No one wants to look like a coward and a fool at the same time.
Even a from a purely Ukro-nationalist framing (and I don’t consider myself a nationalist, I am not even white), I would of course support the Ukrainian Crimea Tartar community.
It’s like saying Islamic state culture is legitimate.
There’s some damn nice architecture and geometry coming out of Islam. Would you tear down a nice mosaic just because they remind you of the worst aspects of the greater culture?
Would you be opposed to getting rid of Nazis imagery too?
Does whole-grain bread count as Nazi imagery? Yes, there’s legitimately a single valuable thing the Nazis ever did, and that was propagating whole-grain bread. Germany wouldn’t eat the bread it does today if there had been a loud group of people insistent on associating it with the Nazis, calling people who like whole-grain bread Nazis, the usual stuff the vernacular calls cancel culture.
I’d say if you want to say “fuck the Russians” then don’t just destroy, but also steal and plunder. Say, Zemfira is in exile right now, she’s up for grabs. Also, Tatar.
There’s some damn nice architecture and geometry coming out of Islam. Would you tear down a nice mosaic just because they remind you of the worst aspects of the greater culture?
Well, I wouldn’t dynamite a 1500 year old Buddha statue because I found it offensive, but an Islamic state sure did.
So I take it you wouldn’t tear down that mosaic. Which is exactly my point. Put it in a museum if you don’t want to have it out in the open because the memory is too fresh.
I know you’re being glib and all, but you’re not doing the russians any favours with coddling their imperialist thinking.
They need to figure out what their culture stands for and how they relate to it. They are not even close, even alleged russian “liberals” are raging nationalists outside of public articles in English or western conferences.
You seem to be a connisour of russian culture. You should look into their use of champagne bottles, it’s very creative. I think you would appreciate it.
Check out Dalny, Kazan! Ask the locals and say you want a real world experience! Enjoy!
I spent a year there around the turn of the century. It was a completely different country, with similar problems and hope (despite fatalism) as Ukraine and a fledgling, but existing, civil society, before Putin nipped it in the bud. I can’t forget that country. (which happens to include Zemfira’s first album).
Yes, among that is also people being, for lack of better term, confused about why Ukraine would institute quotas for Ukrainian-language songs on the radio. But the difference between that and sanity is so much smaller than between that and what’s going down now that I cannot declare all Russian culture to be fundamentally fucked. Moscow’s attitude and governance is what’s fundamentally fucked.
Maybe you should ask the defenders on the frontlines how they dare speak the language of the enemy. Accuse them of war crimes based on nothing but that. Go ahead, I’m waiting.
I see the champagne bottle element of russian culture made you take a back step to your petty sarcasm?
Your attitude is what enables Putin specifically and near universal support for genocidal imperialism among russians.
Even before putin, the russians killed 50 thousand Chechen civilians when they put down their independence movement. A comparable figure would be ~7 million russian civilian casualties. And you talk about Zemifra albums. The reality is that you value the lives of russians more than the lives of the people they kill (even that may not be your intent).
And of course you blame solely putin (“putin nipped it in the bud”) for the decline of russian civil society. Even though the russians re-elected putin in 2004 (in an election generally considered free and fair) after he shut down all independent mass media. Russians are responsible for the collapse of civil society. Don’t infantalize them, they are not children.
Keed in mind, I lived in russia for a decade, coincidentally around the time you were there. And I did actually enjoy the first Zemfira album when it came out. But unlike you I was cognizant that russians were showing a lack of humanity in their attitude towards Chechens and that even liberal minded were show a worrying level of support for an authoritarian KGB goon.
No where did I say russian (or Bengali or Farsi or any language) cannot be used in private. Ukrainian is the official language of Ukraine, Ukraine has its own heroes and great people of culture.
But unlike you I was cognizant that russians were showing a lack of humanity in their attitude towards Chechens and that even liberal minded were show a worrying level of support for an authoritarian KGB goon.
I saw the fear in people’s eyes when they were thinking of conscription. During peace time. Back then noone knew that Putin had orchestrated the apartment building bombings. Back then Putin was a president who wasn’t a drunk. You know the Russian fatalism, they were imagining eternal 90s before Putin and, in the beginning, he actually delivered on getting the economy in shape. In short: The Russian people were bribed, and their hopes betrayed. Now they’re back deep in their fatalism, created by 500 years of Tsars.
Back in the days, I called Putin a Tsar. He still has the same “I’m the smartest person in the room and am now explaining very basic stuff to you” attitude he had back then. Russians didn’t have an eye for spotting such things, how can you tell a terrible politician from another type of terrible politician if you’ve never ever seen an at least half-way decent one. And btw during the first presidential elections he won “against everyone” was still an option, and it got a ton of votes.
Yes, the Russian people, collectively, fucked up. That doesn’t mean that everything about their culture led them there. Americans, too, fuck up constantly, and it’s not BBQ that’s the reason. Germany really fucked up and it wasn’t about whole-grain bread. Noone is cancelling Kant over Hitler and nations we invaded back then now listen to Rammstein.
What I’m advocating against is blanket judgement. That would be the enemy’s mode of thinking winning. You’re better off telling Russian liberals why their shit isn’t sufficient, until they learn to see for themselves.
No where did I say russian (or Bengali or Farsi or any language) cannot be used in private. Ukrainian is the official language of Ukraine, Ukraine has its own heroes and great people of culture.
Soyou suppose that the defenders on the front should defend the front in private? Like, not talk to soldiers that are not family members? Have you any idea how large a percentage of the Ukrainian army operates in Russian?
Yes, Ukrainian is the official language of Ukraine. Everyone is learning it in school. It is the language used in politics. Ukraine also has 17 recognised minority languages, Russian is one of them. Ukrainians are European, they’re capable of being multilingual.
Except the Ukrainians in Odessa who speak Russian and feel they are Ukranian, fuck those people.
Odessa is not Donbas, it’s a unique impressive area with its own history.
Edit: By I can see both sides, I mean I get the Ukranian fury at Russia etc. But I also understand that the people of Odessa have their own version of what being Ukranian is and means.
Ukrainians (in Odessa or anywhere really) are welcome to use russian (or Gujarati) in private. In the public sphere, the official language is Ukrainian.
I am aware that Odessa is not Donbas. What are you even trying to say?
Your waxing poetical about the russian nature of Odessa just like most russians (not only nationalists, you ever hear this from the alleged opposition).
Fundamentally it is not for you or (or the russians) to decide what the official language is in Ukraine, how we name our streets and how we choose to deal with centuries of russian imperialism.
For you this is purely a theoretical discussion. The reality of the matter is that russian language and culture are a tool of russian genocidal imperialism (just look at the state of say the Komi language, if you even know that such a language exists). To fight russian genocidal imperialism, you need to get rid of russian insignia and russian chauvinist, slave-mentality thinking. And yes, this also means recognizing that Ukrainian is the official language of Ukraine and that we have our our great artists and heroes.
I’m saying that when your country is invaded, worrying about respecting the people who’s culture is the same as the invader’s is a great way to get a bunch of fifth columnists. And I’m not sure why you’re not aware of that. Similarly, despite the many British people of German heritage, in 1939, their “unique British-German culture” was not relevant and was not respected and should not have been.
That’s literally calling for genocide? You’re telling a peoples (who are the victims of an invasion) that they cannot have their own culture because it’s similar to an invaders?
No. It literally is not calling for genocide any more than it would be calling for genocide to say that the French should stop teaching kids German in school in Alasace-Lorraine before the Nazis invaded.
Dude France is guilty of serial ethnocide when it comes to languages. Dialectal variation was stamped out, too. No French school taught anything but French at that time, or really ever, and eradication of German was prioritised just as Breton was. Prior German rule was way more even-handed, with French being co-official in French-speaking regions, Nazi rule was as you’d expect, post-war the French continued their policy until 1990. They still haven’t ratified the ECRML.
Thanks to that website, I no longer need independent thought or skepticism. So long as a website reports technical facts, I can’t dislike their editorial decisions, range of opinions or their record of fuck-ups like becoming advocates for the invasion or Iraq. I will defer to the “unbiased” label slapped onto them subjectively by a website not necessarily ran by someone who can even read non-English language news from around the world or who uses a benchmark of bias that is partocular to their national, ideological and cultural context, which is likely very different from mine. Thanks!
If you have to reach two decades back and your gotchya is a choice that most mainstream newspapers and politicians backed, well, I think that says more about your pre determined beliefs on the Economist than it does about the paper but to each their own?
(And of course, if you have a better media bias checker, you might suggest it to the mods at c/politics as it’s the one they use.)
I can reach back to literally today with their Gaza coverage. And no, “most” politicians didn’t back it - this is exactly where you’re falling short. I’m not British or American. An overwhelming majority of politicians in my nation and even my continent thought it was a criminal endeavor. Yet to you, that bias is baked into your national politics - “of course they supported it, everyone did!” I’m supposed to stake their credibility on how much they conform with the opinions of the British government? LOL! And exactly why I find your approach and trust in that website silly.
Oh, the mods at c/politics! Let’s do a quick census on how many of them are Russian, African, Asian, can read news in more than one language etc.
And yes, for an American decision, I used American politicians. It’d be pretty silly to do otherwise “Oh my God, a majority of politicians did not to protect the right to abortion in America, bizzare!” Lol.
Edit: I’d also point out I am neither British not American. Unsure why this matters but it seems to be a thing for you?
Why the hell would you bring up the decision of the US government to illegally invade Iraq as an excuse for a British newspaper endorsing and calling for that invasion and promising it would be a boon to the Iraqi people? Is “Of course the Economist supports whatever Washington decides” is your argument for their being unbiased?
I take it folks saw the phrase cancel culture and downvoted?
It’s actually a fascinating article. Odessa has been at the intersection of Ukraine and Russia for ages. Lots of Russian speakers who resisted Russia etc. But as the invasion goes on, people are being attacked for speaking Russian, statues of Odessa’s most famous people torn down etc. And you can kind of see where both sides are coming from.
It’s an issue I imagine almost none of us knew or thought about, if not for the phrase “cancel culture” why on Earth are we downvoting it?
Nah, it’s because the article is bullshit.
The “kind of see where both sides are coming from” is de facto support for russian genocidal imperialism.
We don’t need Pushkin statues, we have our own artists and our own heroes.
Getting rid of russian language and russian “culture” is a legitimate aim when your country has suffered multiple genocides and centuries of colonialism. Russian culture is trash and has no value. It’s like saying Islamic state culture is legitimate. Would you be opposed to getting rid of Nazis imagery too?
This is just the economist’s version of teenage edgelord posts. I would like to invite the author and their family to Donbas (this is where me and my family or from), we’ll see what he thinks about Pushkin after that.
Is this what you want to normalize? Shitting on some random people (Muslims in this case) just to make your point?People might even be on your side but like this I don’t think you’re any better than the people you’re criticizing, dehumanization begins with language.How am I shitting on Muslims? What are you even on about? You’re equating Muslims to the Islamic state?
You can think whatever you want. You don’t have to deal with russians, of course you’re going to feign concerns about humanitarianism.
It is easy to reject reality, engage in historical revisionism, white-wash russian crimes, when the alternative works out to be you defacto promoting genocidal imperialism. Not many people want to end up on the wrong side of history and be caught saying “supporters and participants of the Nazi regime are not that bad”. It is far easier to convince yourself that it’s really about humanitarian concerns.
Then there is the cowardice angle. Feigning concern about humanitarianism provides a nice escape valve for de facto meek and complacent behaviour with respect to russian PR campaigns (nuclear sabre rattling). No one wants to look like a coward and a fool at the same time.
So keep at it, bro!
Okay you literally mean ISIS, sorry about that! I just misunderstood what you were saying.
Even a from a purely Ukro-nationalist framing (and I don’t consider myself a nationalist, I am not even white), I would of course support the Ukrainian Crimea Tartar community.
There’s some damn nice architecture and geometry coming out of Islam. Would you tear down a nice mosaic just because they remind you of the worst aspects of the greater culture?
Does whole-grain bread count as Nazi imagery? Yes, there’s legitimately a single valuable thing the Nazis ever did, and that was propagating whole-grain bread. Germany wouldn’t eat the bread it does today if there had been a loud group of people insistent on associating it with the Nazis, calling people who like whole-grain bread Nazis, the usual stuff the vernacular calls cancel culture.
I’d say if you want to say “fuck the Russians” then don’t just destroy, but also steal and plunder. Say, Zemfira is in exile right now, she’s up for grabs. Also, Tatar.
Well, I wouldn’t dynamite a 1500 year old Buddha statue because I found it offensive, but an Islamic state sure did.
So I take it you wouldn’t tear down that mosaic. Which is exactly my point. Put it in a museum if you don’t want to have it out in the open because the memory is too fresh.
I know you’re being glib and all, but you’re not doing the russians any favours with coddling their imperialist thinking.
They need to figure out what their culture stands for and how they relate to it. They are not even close, even alleged russian “liberals” are raging nationalists outside of public articles in English or western conferences.
By all means, don’t steal the likes of Navalny. Not sure about the details behind Zemfira I didn’t look into it deeply, she just came to mind.
All I’m really saying is “be selective”, otherwise you’ll end up raging against Pelmeni. Which are Sibirian, btw.
You seem to be a connisour of russian culture. You should look into their use of champagne bottles, it’s very creative. I think you would appreciate it.
Check out Dalny, Kazan! Ask the locals and say you want a real world experience! Enjoy!
I spent a year there around the turn of the century. It was a completely different country, with similar problems and hope (despite fatalism) as Ukraine and a fledgling, but existing, civil society, before Putin nipped it in the bud. I can’t forget that country. (which happens to include Zemfira’s first album).
Yes, among that is also people being, for lack of better term, confused about why Ukraine would institute quotas for Ukrainian-language songs on the radio. But the difference between that and sanity is so much smaller than between that and what’s going down now that I cannot declare all Russian culture to be fundamentally fucked. Moscow’s attitude and governance is what’s fundamentally fucked.
Maybe you should ask the defenders on the frontlines how they dare speak the language of the enemy. Accuse them of war crimes based on nothing but that. Go ahead, I’m waiting.
I see the champagne bottle element of russian culture made you take a back step to your petty sarcasm?
Your attitude is what enables Putin specifically and near universal support for genocidal imperialism among russians.
Even before putin, the russians killed 50 thousand Chechen civilians when they put down their independence movement. A comparable figure would be ~7 million russian civilian casualties. And you talk about Zemifra albums. The reality is that you value the lives of russians more than the lives of the people they kill (even that may not be your intent).
And of course you blame solely putin (“putin nipped it in the bud”) for the decline of russian civil society. Even though the russians re-elected putin in 2004 (in an election generally considered free and fair) after he shut down all independent mass media. Russians are responsible for the collapse of civil society. Don’t infantalize them, they are not children.
Keed in mind, I lived in russia for a decade, coincidentally around the time you were there. And I did actually enjoy the first Zemfira album when it came out. But unlike you I was cognizant that russians were showing a lack of humanity in their attitude towards Chechens and that even liberal minded were show a worrying level of support for an authoritarian KGB goon.
No where did I say russian (or Bengali or Farsi or any language) cannot be used in private. Ukrainian is the official language of Ukraine, Ukraine has its own heroes and great people of culture.
Don’t get petty with war crimes you little shit.
I saw the fear in people’s eyes when they were thinking of conscription. During peace time. Back then noone knew that Putin had orchestrated the apartment building bombings. Back then Putin was a president who wasn’t a drunk. You know the Russian fatalism, they were imagining eternal 90s before Putin and, in the beginning, he actually delivered on getting the economy in shape. In short: The Russian people were bribed, and their hopes betrayed. Now they’re back deep in their fatalism, created by 500 years of Tsars.
Back in the days, I called Putin a Tsar. He still has the same “I’m the smartest person in the room and am now explaining very basic stuff to you” attitude he had back then. Russians didn’t have an eye for spotting such things, how can you tell a terrible politician from another type of terrible politician if you’ve never ever seen an at least half-way decent one. And btw during the first presidential elections he won “against everyone” was still an option, and it got a ton of votes.
Yes, the Russian people, collectively, fucked up. That doesn’t mean that everything about their culture led them there. Americans, too, fuck up constantly, and it’s not BBQ that’s the reason. Germany really fucked up and it wasn’t about whole-grain bread. Noone is cancelling Kant over Hitler and nations we invaded back then now listen to Rammstein.
What I’m advocating against is blanket judgement. That would be the enemy’s mode of thinking winning. You’re better off telling Russian liberals why their shit isn’t sufficient, until they learn to see for themselves.
Soyou suppose that the defenders on the front should defend the front in private? Like, not talk to soldiers that are not family members? Have you any idea how large a percentage of the Ukrainian army operates in Russian?
Yes, Ukrainian is the official language of Ukraine. Everyone is learning it in school. It is the language used in politics. Ukraine also has 17 recognised minority languages, Russian is one of them. Ukrainians are European, they’re capable of being multilingual.
Except the Ukrainians in Odessa who speak Russian and feel they are Ukranian, fuck those people.
Odessa is not Donbas, it’s a unique impressive area with its own history.
Edit: By I can see both sides, I mean I get the Ukranian fury at Russia etc. But I also understand that the people of Odessa have their own version of what being Ukranian is and means.
Ukrainians (in Odessa or anywhere really) are welcome to use russian (or Gujarati) in private. In the public sphere, the official language is Ukrainian.
I am aware that Odessa is not Donbas. What are you even trying to say?
Your waxing poetical about the russian nature of Odessa just like most russians (not only nationalists, you ever hear this from the alleged opposition).
Fundamentally it is not for you or (or the russians) to decide what the official language is in Ukraine, how we name our streets and how we choose to deal with centuries of russian imperialism.
For you this is purely a theoretical discussion. The reality of the matter is that russian language and culture are a tool of russian genocidal imperialism (just look at the state of say the Komi language, if you even know that such a language exists). To fight russian genocidal imperialism, you need to get rid of russian insignia and russian chauvinist, slave-mentality thinking. And yes, this also means recognizing that Ukrainian is the official language of Ukraine and that we have our our great artists and heroes.
I’d strongly suggest actually reading the article.
You could have said the same thing about Southern Confederates in the U.S. in the 1860s. They don’t get to have their own version anymore.
Are you actually comparing Odessa to the Confederates? That’s a real decision you’re making?
Edit: trying to understand this take… Are you perhaps confused and thinking Odessa is part of Russia?
I’m saying that when your country is invaded, worrying about respecting the people who’s culture is the same as the invader’s is a great way to get a bunch of fifth columnists. And I’m not sure why you’re not aware of that. Similarly, despite the many British people of German heritage, in 1939, their “unique British-German culture” was not relevant and was not respected and should not have been.
This was the rationale behind America’s Japanese internment camps, which in my opinion, weren’t great.
I mean there’s a happy medium between not allowing things like allowing them to openly celebrate Russian stuff and putting them in internment camps…
To be clear, you think Japanese Americans shouldn’t have been allowed to speak Japanese anymore?
How long should this have persisted?
That’s literally calling for genocide? You’re telling a peoples (who are the victims of an invasion) that they cannot have their own culture because it’s similar to an invaders?
No. It literally is not calling for genocide any more than it would be calling for genocide to say that the French should stop teaching kids German in school in Alasace-Lorraine before the Nazis invaded.
Dude France is guilty of serial ethnocide when it comes to languages. Dialectal variation was stamped out, too. No French school taught anything but French at that time, or really ever, and eradication of German was prioritised just as Breton was. Prior German rule was way more even-handed, with French being co-official in French-speaking regions, Nazi rule was as you’d expect, post-war the French continued their policy until 1990. They still haven’t ratified the ECRML.
Yes, without a doubt denying children their cultural language and customs is a form of ethnocide/genocide.
I downvoted for The Economist.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economist/
But yeah, “Boo this newspaper for being one of the most credible and unbiased around! I hate it when reality conflicts with my preferred narratives!”
Thanks to that website, I no longer need independent thought or skepticism. So long as a website reports technical facts, I can’t dislike their editorial decisions, range of opinions or their record of fuck-ups like becoming advocates for the invasion or Iraq. I will defer to the “unbiased” label slapped onto them subjectively by a website not necessarily ran by someone who can even read non-English language news from around the world or who uses a benchmark of bias that is partocular to their national, ideological and cultural context, which is likely very different from mine. Thanks!
If you have to reach two decades back and your gotchya is a choice that most mainstream newspapers and politicians backed, well, I think that says more about your pre determined beliefs on the Economist than it does about the paper but to each their own?
(And of course, if you have a better media bias checker, you might suggest it to the mods at c/politics as it’s the one they use.)
I can reach back to literally today with their Gaza coverage. And no, “most” politicians didn’t back it - this is exactly where you’re falling short. I’m not British or American. An overwhelming majority of politicians in my nation and even my continent thought it was a criminal endeavor. Yet to you, that bias is baked into your national politics - “of course they supported it, everyone did!” I’m supposed to stake their credibility on how much they conform with the opinions of the British government? LOL! And exactly why I find your approach and trust in that website silly.
Oh, the mods at c/politics! Let’s do a quick census on how many of them are Russian, African, Asian, can read news in more than one language etc.
What have you disliked about their gaza coverage?
And yes, for an American decision, I used American politicians. It’d be pretty silly to do otherwise “Oh my God, a majority of politicians did not to protect the right to abortion in America, bizzare!” Lol.
Edit: I’d also point out I am neither British not American. Unsure why this matters but it seems to be a thing for you?
Why the hell would you bring up the decision of the US government to illegally invade Iraq as an excuse for a British newspaper endorsing and calling for that invasion and promising it would be a boon to the Iraqi people? Is “Of course the Economist supports whatever Washington decides” is your argument for their being unbiased?
So, no actual complaints about the Gaza coverage then?
Edit: You might also actually read some of their articles about invading Iraq.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2003/02/20/why-war-would-be-justified