Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
Posts must ask a question.
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
Try [email protected] if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
Posts about mental health should go in [email protected] you are loved here :meow-hug: but !mentalhealth is much better equipped to help you out <3.
"Violence isn't the answer" regarding Palestine
i'm sure the savage arabs haven't heard of non-violence thanks for letting them know. It's just weird eugenicist shit, because these white people would also be violent had they been born under the conditions of colonial subjugation
The ENTIRE fucking reason America claims it was allowed to exist is that George Fucking Washington and his associates were SUFFICIENTLY OPPRESSED by the British government, to the point where it became permissible to fire 70 caliber lead balls into soldiers skulls.
But black and brown people should just fucking take it I guess
Not to mention, the american revolution happened because the settlers wanted to keep their slaves, keep expanding their colonies and genociding indigenous people, and didn't want to pay taxes on shit. And it's permissible and noble for them to revolt under those conditions
Meanwhile it's bad when Palestinians rise up when they have been refugees and ethnically cleansed for 75 years
This also goes with the States. we learned about MLK jr. a lot in school and he "peacefully protested." But we weren't taught much about Malcolm X or Fred Hampton because they were "violent thugs".
We weren't taught that King was a socialist but some classes called Malcolm X and Hampton socialist or communist. Which rolled into how the Black Panthers were "a violent gang" instead of a group of inner city poor people doing mutual aid for impoverished neighborhoods and poor schools.
Meanwhile groups like the Italian mobsters get glorified.
Treating the usian "founding fathers" as democracy-loving freedom fighters
I suppose the British considered them to be rebels, insurrectionists, or maybe even terrorists. It's all a matter of perspective isn't it?
The British press and government explicitly called them terrorists.
But the other side of it is just as laughable. Whenever the framers of the constitution wrote about what they were trying to do, they would endlessly hand-wring about how bad it would be for everyone to have a say in government. They thought only rich land-owning men had proved themselves worthy to hold power. You know, them and all their friends. The american "revolution" had more in common with a coup than any sort of real liberatory movement.
Well it was still a step in the right direction, distributing power a bit more locally instead of living as a colony under a monarchical foreign power. You may also recall that initially they went too far in decentralizing power before the Constitution replaced the articles of confederation. Even then voting rights were mostly decided by each state, some allowing non land owners and even free black men (though sometimes later removing that right) to vote pre 1800s. Whatever they may have discussed, voting and ability to participate in government was enjoyed by over half of the citizens, which is a significant improvement over the foreign tyrant they had previously. But regardless of how the British tried to label colonial rebels, and regardless of how much the rebels didn't get right, I'm on the side of the historical revolutionaries.
I would love to know your opinion of the CPC within this context. You have made it clear that you support American revolutionaries if only because their system was ostensibly better than the one that came before. What about Chinese revolutionaries?
Hmm, interesting question. That depends if you think that the society they have now is better than the one preceding? The two situations aren't entirely analogous since one involved separation from a foreign power while the other involved dismantling of the old culture and society in order to make a brand new one. I think that China is more powerful now than they would be otherwise, had they not gone through their cultural revolution, but it came at a great cost where centuries of culture was destroyed. I don't think it was worth it, but that's also easy for me to say because I don't live there and because my perception is certainly skewed by Western perspectives. I think they lost something of great value with how the cultural revolution played out and the Chinese people are irrecoverably different as a result. Makes me a little bit sad, but we can't change the past, so it doesn't really matter.
You think "destroying centuries of culture" outweighs abolishing extreme poverty, ending feudalism in a country of more than a billion, redistributing land to the peasantry, taking the country from a cycle where every few years millions would die in a famine to being an economic super power, leading the world in space age scientific progress?
"I got jipped" or however it's spelled. We say it all the time in America, but a euro transplant informed me that it's basically a slur for gypsies.
The term "g*psy" being used casually, in a way simply used to just talk about the Roma people, and it being the only term most people know for them, is also another racist thing that's normalized.
FYI the best term for the ethnic group is Roma.
True. Gypsy itself is a slur too, right? Sorry, idk much and European bigotry aside from the meme where Europeans scold us for being a racist country, then turn around and say they want to exterminate the Roma.
Yeah I think so. We have a lot of great threads on Roma culture in Hexbear, I'd recommend checking them out because their culture is really cool. I especially love Romani architecture.
Seriously, check out these sick palaces!
Those look rad. Like someone was building a traditional European house and half way up got bored and decided to finish it as a Chinese pagoda.
”Declining birthrates” is considered a normal thing to talk about, even though it only refers to white people.
Condescending attitudes towards any non-
country, like I remember when the US left Afghanistan and a lot of people said stuff along the lines of ”We helped them so much and they still didn't become a good liberal democracy!”.
”Declining birthrates” is considered a normal thing to talk about, even though it only refers to white people.
I encourage you not to read any comments sections about declining birthrates in Japan, South Korea, or China. They invariably read like cattle farmers complaining about a bad year, except usually cattle farmers aren't chomping at the bit to go fuck the cows.
cattle farmers aren't chomping at the bit to go fuck the cows.
Welllll…