174
"Do you denounce the actions of Hamas?"
(hexbear.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
174 points (99.4% liked)
chapotraphouse
13321 readers
1197 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
A little bit to my surprise, ol' Norman Finkelstein, in his media appearances since this latest development in the occupation, has refused to condemn Hamas. In his interview with Chris Hedges yesterday, he explained this decision with reference to slave revolts in the US, John Brown, and the Haitian revolution. I think it's a sound comparison.
Yes yes I bring up the slave revolts whenever I get asked this. Feels like a perfect comparison to me. Most libs will admit that they think slaves freeing themselves was justification for violence, and they did kill innocent people in more than one uprising.
The most common response I hear is that "this is different, Hamas is getting funding from the real bad guys who just want to attack Jews." During many of the slave revolts, there are records of voices claiming "this isn't an honest rebellion, they are the unwitting stooges of the French/Spanish who just want to attack Brits!"
in the American War of Independence, the British offered freedom to slaves who fought against colonists. Many joined up with the "Ethiopian" regiment of the redcoats for that reason. So the lesson here is even if they are working for a foreign power... So fucking what?!?! Don't enslave them and maybe that wouldn't be their only option! Where else are they gonna get guns and training?
I wouldn't call it a Bri'ish W. It was opportunism. They foresaw the loss of their colonies and so decided to use a bunch of black men as human shields in a desperate attempt to keep those colonies. It was less driven by an ideological sympathy for abolitionism than it was driven by a desire to keep their colonial holdings. The British also opportunistically supported the confederacy during the civil war because they benefited tremendously from the American cotton market in their textile industry. Had the British held onto colonial America, it is very possible they would have betrayed the Ethiopian regiment at the end of the war and put them back in chains, or even more likely, just keep using them as cannon fodder until they all died.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qp4vErXMD9k
Relevant clip
That's a great clip, very succinct. And thankfully (for my own sake) it's gentle to the guy saying he hates violence. For me, at least growing up in America, "nonviolence" felt like a radical position because it was contrary to the infuriating common American ethos that sometimes you jus' gotta grit yer teeth and do the deed. (the deed being dropping white phosphorus on brown town)
Another case of reactionaries figuring out how to be the most annoying pieces of shit in the world
I love how the questioner in that clip just smiles, nods and walks away instead of further replying, like 'damn, you got me'. He doesn't seem mad about it either— he looks like maybe it's really given him something to think about.
Fucking brutal, I love it. He didn't waste any time destroying that poor kid's worldview
banger