#don't defend imperialists

[asian-fiction]

Cultural sensitivity will help you understand dramas better

People get sensitive over the idea that one should try cultural sensitivity because often it means self-reflection. Humans processing difference, is definitely still a problem today. But here we go. Honestly, this type of behavior is why I stopped doing cultural notes so often. It's always rounds of people jumping in to defend the outsider and telling me to be nice to their cultural insensitivity and let them track mud into my house, and then telling me that me calling them out for tracking mud into my house is a terrible idea and I shouldn't do that. Friends don't let friends drive drunk. Friends also shouldn't let friends be culturally insensitive and beat up the person trying to extend learning either.

First of all, I've been trained in Cultural Anthropology--I have a degree in it. I also taught classes for a big media company in cultural media sensitivity. And 101 class in Anthropology says the first thing you need to do is pause judgement--which is what I said. Pause judgement.

I mean, if Cultural Anthropology didn't teach about how to get over yourself and culture shock, more Anthropologists would be tossed out of the communities they've been studying. Which is to say I know what I'm doing when I'm pushing against things like imperialism and ethnocentricism. I had the same challenges presented to me. I have no need to be nice about it, but I will be kind. And yes, most of the time this it is white women socialization to ask people to be nice (which isn't wrong, but different, but can be problematic in some contexts--which my white women friends also like to make fun of because they know it so well and are so self-aware, but they also learned how to use it for good, not evil), but understand the context and if it really is helpful to let people walk around with ideas that might harm them later down the road. Which is the greater harmony? That's the difference between kindness and niceness. It is more kind to try to challenge people to self-reflect on their prejudices, than let them walk around with them for the rest of their lives. I did the recently for my cousin's son, too. He got judgy about what other cultures eat, and I worked hard to walk him through it with another family member, and then he came to understand the how and why.

I get your discomfort is why you're asking an entire population to change--I mean Anthropology used to do this sort of thing too. This was their first reaction was to judge, but Anthropology, as a field grew up and realized that demanding that a country change without understanding why things are that way in the first place can do a TON of damage to the communities. This is pretty much the whole history of imperialism. And honestly, most people of color hate imperialism in the first place. (Someone is going to chime in, but, but don't you mean only Asians, no, I mean the majority of the world has been imperialized by Europe and we've been beat up over it. Look up your nearest politics. Name a country outside of Europe, and I'll honestly give you a run down--yes, even Thailand *cough British anyone? Granted a month, but British Museum says a lot….)

The same discomfort that straight people have over queer people demands that queer people act more like straight people. The same discomfort white people have around Black people demands that Black people act more like white people and not talk in their own, very understandable Black English dialects (why else subtitle PoC english speakers?). The same discomfort is the type where people demand that they don't have to see or engage with people who are disabled. It's the same human behavior. And usually, people from the out groups chime in and say, how could that be wrong? Of course they have to bend to us. Of course the wheelchair user has to cope with a 2 foot drop from the curb. Of course we should never have to change our rules on hiring practices for Black people. But the thing is when a group is oppressed for so long, at which point are you punching down? This is what I'm asking. And it's likely you have a difference that's also been picked on and people have also asked you to change it when you couldn't. There is a high likelihood this is a case of this in the majority of the posters. Think about it, and self-reflect for a while-- would you want to bend to such demands when the person hasn't even come to try to understand who you are? And this is how I was taught to stop and think about it in my classes on Anthropology. You, outsider, understand nothing. You are approaching a different time, a different people, but you need to make them human to you first before you can judge them and say they are wrong. It would be like a stranger coming up to you and punching you for wearing a cultural costume. Or that Atlanta shooter for shooting massage parlor people (who to be clear weren't sex workers, though there is nothing wrong with that) shooting Asians because he was angry over covid.

Also, when you're absolutely used to everyone bending to you and your ways, it can be a huge shock to be asked to bend to a totally different way.

To me, asking a country to change, is like trying to grow cacao beans in a desert and then demanding the people live off of that. It simply doesn't work because cacao is tropical. The desert is not. You don't know the conditions that they work under. There have been "rescue" groups that go to Africa (the continent, yes) where they try to force the locals to grow crops that simply don't work, and then the people come there all mighty and ignorant, and then tada~~ a storm blows in or the river floods just like they thought, and those "rescue" organizations have their tails between their legs and then have to start from scratch, learn from the people about what is and isn't working and why and how the system can work better.

So processing your culture shock--100% it takes practice. But it's never, ever OK, to use your discomfort to demand a country should change without understanding how and why the system works like that and how and why your own contexts might also be flawed.

100% I've gone through culture shock and stared at things where I go, this makes absolutely no sense to me. 100%… but what I've been taught through my anthropology classes, is to travel through my discomfort, reflect on if my systems at home are really that much better, and if it's really that dire of a change needed. Am I going to literally die if Japanese chocolate doesn't taste like Belgium chocolate like I'm used to (c'mon, US chocolate is worse than Japanese… most of the time--opinion here)? Or can I reflect on that difference and go, ah, cool, that's why. I may not agree, but I understand. I won't always agree with the difference, but in understanding why, my judgements become less divisive, more cool, and I understand that this system is working (or not quite working) for them.

I really do get that self-reflection makes people feel icky, but if you want to engage with people unlike you, you have to travel through this sort of discomfort. You get better at it as you experience more of it, like anything in life.

Also, this is probably why more Koreans wish I would quit making these comments, because there is always that one person that can't stand culture shock, and think their discomfort is more important than learning.

When I didn't bend to the people of the country, they treated me colder, and I think I would have missed out on a lot of good experiences if I had doubled down on my discomfort. What I want is a bit of that magic that I experienced for you. This is why I write these comments. It's not to get judged as a Korean person trying to extend an olive branch on everything you dislike about Korea. I am not everyone Korean. I am not a symbol. Let people travel through their discomfort--if it makes you feel uncomfortable seeing that they are being asked to travel through it, maybe you also could work on that. Because I promise you something better is on the other side.

Ah, I'd have missed out on the Geta obaasan if I was that uptight. And I swear thinking back onto that moment, makes me still tear up because I could really appreciate her humanity because I learned to let go. I'd trade the entire trip to Japan for that one moment, it was that special.

[rawliverandgoronspice]

Ok so weird thing: Puppet Zelda. I mean, it was pretty obvious as a player Imo? But what I don't get: The tears show her ONCE! and it's the scene right before Ganondorf gives Sonia a backbreaking back massage. It's alluded to that she (he) did some other weird stuff to mess up for Sonia and Rauru, and it's not expanded upon at all. I was so put off by that, because it feels like that would have been a big chance for ACTUAL character development for ALL the characters from the past. What did P-Z do? Where was Ganondorf? Was he hidden, or was he inside the castle? How did Sonia react to it? How did Rauru react to it? How did Sonia catch on? Why was it only Sonia and Zelda confronting P-Z? Why wasn't Rauru somewhere hidden as well? I doubt Rauru would have dismissed such a serious accusation. Sonia confronts P-Z, Zelda comes out, then Rauru lies in wait to check for extra danger. The time it takes for Rauru to arrive also kinda makes me think he wasn't that far away? P-Z is a cool concept, but I'm still just so baffled by the absolute "non-story" they built by alluding to her bullshit.

Okay so. Yeah. I completely, 100% agree, and I want to use the opportunity to air out a very particular complaint I have not really seen a lot of people talk about, because I just rewatched that scene and I am shocked all over again.

The teacup scene, after Ganondorf submits, is, in my opinion, horrendous. Like not because of secret Problematisms (though yes also this, we just saw them asking their enemies to kneel and the very next scene they're having a little tea party with cake between royals while armed guards protect them and it's not supposed to be a red flag and it's wild to me), but because the actual writing, at a craft level, reads like a first draft at best. There are three narrative information beats that matter in this entire scene:

The war has stopped

Zelda wants to help her ancestors and not only return to her own era (??? okay, she already did and the problems are technically over already as far as they know??? and it's not a choice she's making since she still can't master her powers and never learn to btw)

Rauru learns Link's name

I'd argue the only real important thing is that Rauru learns Link's name, and it could have been done in a much more interesting and dynamic way.

Instead the scene just goes on and on with lore dumps that never go anywhere, reiterations of the bond between Zelda and Sonia we had already established, dialogue that is... shockingly bad...

Actually, let's examine just one case: "Ah. I can see that you have absolute faith in him."

Like, just, general pro-tip: if you use "I can see that X" in dialogue and it's not ironic or used as de-escalation and just there to reiterate what we have just immediately established, cut that line. It's doing nothing, it's dead weight, it's just grinding the pace of a scene to a halt for no reason (unless you want it to be about stagnation, like I could see a David Lynch dinner scene where every character restate each other's actions by saying "I can see that you really like the gravy." over and over but it's not.... very applicable to more generic situations). This is writing 101, and the scene is full of these nothing sentences that go nowhere and establish nothing about the characters or the world and set up nothing and pay off nothing and it's driving me wild!

(also it does my least favorite thing in game writing aka the game praising the player character for an unreasonable amount of time, but I realize this is a pet peeve and not as important but it always makes me roll my eyes incredibly hard when it's not earned and it wasn't earned or useful here, the fact that the scene ends on everyone being like yaaay link!!! is... completely disconnected from the actual story happening in the past and shouldn't be the focus of the characters at that moment --it would be more powerful if Zelda used Link as an image of strength to inspire Rauru after Sonia's death later, for example)

It's a scene that completely undermines the tension built in the previous memory, makes the timeline of events confusing, and it leaves a ton of questions open, like: where the hell is Ganondorf? What is he doing? What did Rauru mean by "keeping him close", if he isn't actually close? Do they think he returned to the gerudo lands while he actually stayed hidden in their palace to do his Puppet Zelda shenanigans? I don't know! There is no way to know, because we're being told about teacups and how Link is amazing instead of anything relevant to the plot!

So yeah. Would have *gladly* done away with that teacup scene and focused more on a very tense moment of Sonia and Puppet Zelda where she acts very suspiciously and maybe aborts a first attempt at stealing the stone that goes nowhere, and this is when Sonia catches on that something is off? Honestly, I would also have killed for an actual scene of tension between Zelda and Ganondorf where they, like. Talk to each other. Instead of this actual current version of the story where they never do. And maybe this is how he realizes that she has a special connection with Sonia and it's how he tries to get her.

But yeah. Sorry, I kind of hijacked the ask into a "this damn teacup scene!!!" *shakes my first at clouds*, but I think it mirrors the thought that priorities were not given to the actual tension points laid down in the story. Puppet Zelda inherently calls upon ideas of fear of imposture, of abuse of power, of insecurity, of a twisted version of what Hyrule *could* be, which is so interesting and ripe with conflict and counterpoints.

I would have done unruly things for a Zelda arc where she is struggling to be a ruler and she's still very insecure and wrecked by guilt over the Calamity thing and feel disconnected from the land because of the whole "being locked 100 years away fighting a demon" thing and her daddy issues, and this is this insecurity that Ganondorf picks up on and preys on by trying to dismantle Hyrule using her very image as he plans his Big Comeback, and our role is to unite all of Hyrule against this weird nasty caricature of her created by an envious man who was furious to see his rule rejected and his rebellion considered less important than peace, then go to her acknowledging the immense and unjust sacrifice she made becoming a dragon and being like "hey Zelda we all love you and we will all fight for you because we made the choice to believe in the future you want to build" and it would have been soososo powerful and I would have perhaps shed a tear or two or ten. ;_;

[lord-squiggletits]

Onyx Prime = Shockwave time travel plot is such shitty writing I could and WILL (eventually) write multiple essays about it it's so fucking bad.

[jarchivussy]

sorry not sorry but if you still think "The Ukraine" is the correct way to say it maybe you should shut the fuck up about ukrainian politics

[11thfempachi]

Hate with all of its synonyms in the English language will never be enough to even approximately describe how much I fucking despise yours and your fanbases and your country's sheer existence and every dickhead self proclaimed rad who cheers on you, defends you and kisses your ass like they're paid for it. The sheer fact that you can admit with your full chest that you can look deeply into the eyes of a man, who would cross a river of shit and blood for a couple bucks and send an another batch of greedy zombies you yanks defend as martyrs because their student loans apparently cost several innocent lives as long as the lives aren't white yanks, and see this empty void that's blind to rivers of gore he causes to flow for a living, and turn a blind eye yourself and get next to zero backlash - it all proves to me American left is nothing but a parody of itself. And when you did receive some criticism it was either from foreigners whose opinions are like a third of a yanks opinion to all you or from those eager to witness "drama" before they switch to something more entertaining.

My country hasn't suffered from imperialism in like 700 years or so. My country's wealth and identity is built on bones that were burnt to dust to warm the homes of the "most hospitable nation" - like millions of adyghe, jews, romani, ukrainians, tatars, koreans, kalmyks to name a few and those countless others whose names were lost to time because they were forced to abandon them to accept the 'correct' identity and the 'correct' religion. And that is if we don't consider foreign invasions that didn't end in destruction of culture and national identity like the coup in Afghanistan and occupation of Finland, Poland and attempts to colonise Mongolia. Finding a leftist here - even simply a liberal-leaning anybody - let alone those who know of and acknowledge at least a fraction of those atrocities I mentioned and do care is nigh impossible. Some of them can be met among radfems. Some. A lot cannot even attempt to give a fuck about ongoing struggles of fellow women in other countries, only caring to look into news to say "oh, thank god white men aren't as barbarian!". But even in these more xenophobic circles, If i ever dared to hint on happily making babies with my beautiful jakey boy who sends new meat to bomb Ukrainian villages off the face of the earth, even if there would be a couple of snarky voices in my support here and there, my shit would be shut down faster in most communities before I could even say hi. Can you imagine me posting something on here? I would be thrown to the wolves, and I would say rightfully so, but seeing as how you are being treated - no it's not. Oh yanks are so quick to pass judgement on what happens everywhere else. Our little American boys are being sent to war - they're brainwashed, they're victims, they're helpless and are trying to survive. YOUR men are going to war - because they're soulless bloodthirsty colonisers. Our politicians is our only choice, our system is flawed, we have to pick the lesser of two evils - for us, of course, for those who are being killed for our wealth and prosperity nothing will change. Your politicians have power because they were picked by a fash majority - absolute majority, almost everybody, actually. Our veterans were fighting for our freedom in countries that couldn't possibly win a war against us by themselves. Your veterans are willing enforcers of imperialism.

I, honestly, already forgot how and when I wanted to end this. It's 8 am and I'm sick. But if there is a God, if hell is real, and if he ever discovers a sense that he only ever expected us to have in a fit of unimaginable egoism - that is shame, and if the eternal hellfire is my destination, then I hope I'll die shortly before you - and I get to see you both fall into the deepest pits of hell, and all I'll be missing is knowledge that his body was torn to pieces by wild animals who are returning to blooming gardens of Palestine and Afghanistan where people regardless of who they are are free to rest, walk and sing - from then and forever.

I do wish you to read my response. But I don't expect much from you. All I will definitely receive is either a snarky response along the lines of "omggg you're so obsessed with me teehee" or "wow okay crazyy are you done yet?" or a pathetic defensive rant painting you and your piece of human shit jakey as the victim, proving my point. If you'll even read this before blocking me. You won't. I know you fucking won't. I don't even know why I'm writing this now. But I hope you get at least a glimpse of how much I hate you and everybody, everywhere who thinks like you. See you in hell.

Post on Tumblr: "mushrooms are yummy"

Comments: "what about poisonous mushrooms? Stop spreading misinformation"

"I have mushroom allergies. You want me dead"

[read-marx-and-lenin]

Of the Americans who fought in Korea or Vietnam, none were "innocent" by virtue of having been drafted. The moral choice there was to either dodge the draft, defect to the other side, or frag the guy giving orders. Anyone who chose otherwise was a criminal and a murderer. And once the draft was over and the army became volunteer-only, all the excuses vanished. Yes, there are people who were in Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria who regretted it, but regretting your crime doesn't undo it. That's just the minimum requirement for being a decent human being in the aftermath.

To everyone who says "you leftists can't go around hating on the troops, don't you want them to join the revolution?" I say "why would they join us if they couldn't handle being told the truth about the genocidal terrorist organization they volunteered for?" If their reaction upon hearing people call the US military murderers and terrorists is to deny or equivocate or rationalize their participation, then they're not yet fit to be a revolutionary. If we're trying to dismantle the imperialist warmongering empire that continues to use its might and influence to murder millions around the world that is the United States, what good is a person who balks at the notion that the troops who volunteer to pledge their lives and their loyalty in service of this empire might be complicit in its crimes?

An American soldier or veteran who is not ready to admit they were wrong will not be any more ready to join us if we lie to them and say they made no mistake in joining the US military. We only weaken our own messaging and our own position if we refuse to condemn not just the US military as an organization but all those who continue to participate in and defend its actions. The troops are not innocent.

[wilcze-kudly]

Actually I WILL talk about Mai's seeming 'radicalisation'. With the upcoming comic, I can see why a lot of people are confused/caught offguard by Mai suddenly having a vested interest in reforming the Fire Nation's school curriculum.

However, I don't think it's as much of a heelturn as one would believe at first glance.

Mai is a difficult character to pinpoint on some levels, particularly due to her upbringing which stripped her of a lot of her self expression. I think most of the fandom underestimates the trauma and effect of Mai's upbringing. I elaborate on it here.

However, the long and short of it is that Mai was not encouraged to question, criticise or, god forbid, rebel against her enviornment. To the point where her parents scared her with stories of spirits that would kidnap her if she misbehaved.

Ukano's involvement in politics and relatively high status should also be taken into account. Mai would have grown up being strongly encouraged to conform to her father's beliefs and go along with his politics.

Mai : My mother said I had to keep out of trouble. We had my dad's political career to think about.

We've seen the propaganda and indoctrination of the Fire Nation school system, how it uses misinformation in its curriculum and how it punishes deviance.

Most fire nation children won't have the tools to find the cruelty and danger in the philosophy of the Fire Nation. Zuko had to get banished from the country to even start his deconstruction. And he had Iroh at his side to guide him.

It's not shocking that Mai would not be able to see the flaws of the Fire Nation. Despite this, she still shows no attachment to the Nation's cause, either. In fact, she actively refused to take part in the war effort when she thought she could get away with it.

I don't think Mai had much sympathy to the other nations, nor will I claim she secretly harboured anti imperialistic sentiment. I simply want to state the fact that Mai was, from a young age, forced to do things she didn't want to do and conditioned by multiple parties, to accept this. Mai has been trained to be passive, with only the method of passive aggressiveness and gloominess to defend herself.

I think after the fall of Ozai's rule and the slow restructuring of the Nation, Mai got more freedom in her life. Ukano's political role diminished, so Mai was allowed to think for herself. She gets to discover the world more and develop her own thoughts and ideals, rather than the ones she'd been forced to conform to.

This line in the upcoming comic seems to confirm my thoughts:

Mai's upbringing is the underground and darkness. She was never given an alternative or agency in her life. And thanks to Zuko, she was able to see and experience a different world than the one she was brought up with. She is able to help to try and achieve it.

Initially, Mai is angry at Zuko's joining of team Avatar. She feels betrayed and upset that he did not talk to her in person, even if it was to protect her. And yet, she saves him. While I believe that most of her motivation was genuinely out of love for Zuko. But she also, ekther inadvertently or deliberately made the choice between Azula and Zuko. Between the two potential duture leaders of the Nation.

And she chose Zuko. Who is not only the boy she loves, but also the boy who can heal her nation.

There is an argument to be made about how Mai represents the Fire Nation itself and its relationship to Zuko, but that is a topic for another day.

The theme of Mai caring for the future of the Fire Nation can be seen expanding in the comics. As 99% of the fandom will tell you, the comics have their flaws, but I do enjoy their handling of Mai for the most part.

I think it's interesting that we are shown that Mai not only wants Zuko to be Fire Lord, but for him to be a good Fire Lord.

We see her dissapointed in Zuko secretly meeting with Ozai. At first glance, what she says to Zuko is that she is dissapointed in him keeping secrets from her, which is understandable, since the last time he kept a secret from her led to him joining the opposite side of a war.

However, with her next appearance, we see that Mai may have had another concern relating to Zuko's communing with Ozai. When Ty Lee informs her of Zuko also enlisting Azula's help, Mai exclaims 'so he really is turning into his father', which seems to denote that Mai has a distaste for Ozai and his rule, whether that be from the begining, or recently acquired.

Mai also criticises Zuko's callous and controlling restrictions over the frightened townspeople. This serves to further cement the idea of Mai becoming disillusioned with the similarly inclined authority figures of her past. Authority figures who were a symptom of the Fire Nation's utilitarian and imperialistic system. We see this disdain manifesting in its full force in the teasers for the upcoming comic.

I think people tend to not realise how restricted in her self expression and thoughts Mai was, despite all the puzzle pieces being laid out for us in the show.

Mai has gone through a very quick and yet realistic episode of character growth in my opinion. Not unlike a lot of people raised in heavily Conservative and restrictive households who peel off later in life, she's settling into her own mindset and motivations.

Ans I don't think it's an unrealistic idea for Mai to want to help change the education system. The Fire Academy for girls is where she met Azula, and as an all girl school alumni, I can tell you first hand how toxic and confining these enviornments can be.

While Mai may not be seen as a particularly empathetic or kind person (though I think this interpretation is flawed), she can sympathise with the young girls who will be placed in the shoes of her younger self.

She can want to not see these kids go through what she, Ty Lee AND Azula did.

[The panels of Mai glancing between the stifling interior of the school and the open window and choosing to go outside and lead the Nation's youth outside... ugh]

Not only is this a rather logical progression for Mai's character, in my opinion, but it also feels like a very big 'healing your inner child' moment for Mai. Since she was not really seemingly allowed to be a child, as most children in the Fire Nation appeared to have such restrictions placed on them.

I don't think it's much of a stretch of the imagination that Mai would want to have at least a small part in dismantling the system that harmed her and so many other children of the nation.

She is a young woman now, she has grown from the oversheltered, apathetic teen she was in the show. She has been able to make her own informed opinions about the state of the nation, has been able to hone her trauma into determination. And it seems we're going to see the fruits of this development in "Ashes of the Academy".

I have very high hopes for the upcoming comic, since what we've seen of it appears to make a compelling story, one I relate to deeply, as well as a good study of Mai, a character I find often misinterpreted by the fandom.

[psychotrenny]

I hope those people realise that all the excuses they come up with to morally absolve US Soldiers (i.e. they were propagandised and tricked into it, they were desperate and didn't have a choice, they don't actually believe in the ideology they're just trying to improve their lives) could just as easily be said about members of the Wehrmacht. Like if you wouldn't defend Nazi soldiers and get mad at people wishing for their deaths, then you shouldn't do the same for the soldiers of any other Imperialist Nation and especially not the most powerful and widely hated of Imperialist Nations

"B-but Nazi Germany and the USA aren't morally equivalent". You know, you might be onto something. The Nazi armed forces only inflicted pain and misery, murdering and raping to expand and defend a system of brutal and at times genocidal exploitation, in Europe and parts of Africa for barely over a decade (if you're generous). The US military has been for terrorising the entire planet for over 75 years and has a centuries long history of atrocities in the Americas (as well as various more isolated acts of Imperialist violence all around Africa, Asia and the Pacific) preceding this. Like you really need to reevaluate your worldview if you're any kind of "Leftist" who thinks that US veterans need require defence and absolution; humanity doesn't end at your country's borders

[papirouge]

It's funny how radfem had a problem with "smear campaigns" when it came to defend a White blonde millionaire woman, but jumped right on it when it came to bully and harass an GNC MENA woman along Conservatives, racist rightoids and White supremacists

.

Let that sink in.

Radfems really dropped the ball on the whole Olympics boxing saga. For a group that is supposedly against blindly believing the media, we've had too many people do too little fact checking with regards to these events.

It appears now that Khelif is biologically female with a DSD. We've lost all credibility and basically proven the TRAs right by jumping on the bandwagon to label an intersex woman as male. This is why I've always been against the "we can always tell" thing, because so many times we honestly can't, and to proclaim otherwise only gives the opposition more ammunition.

I've heard claims following this debacle that Reduxx might actually be a psyop to push gender-critical women further and further towards right-wing/racist/homophobic ideas and honestly those theories are starting to seem somewhat credible.

Sure, the IOC and other sporting bodies are partially to blame by destroying public trust and previously allowing males into women's competitions, but that doesn't negate that this is a major failure on the part of feminists.

[tamamita]

why do people hate the dutch so badly lol its so weird

Why do you people have this weird obsession of defending the Dutch? Do you guys just stop at the English and the French in your Leftism and just forget about every other shitty European country? They were major players in the colonial game and committed atrocities wherever they went, and they still retain much of their racist and imperialist legacy. Did you forget about the South African apartheid? Who were those white people in power exactly? If a South Asian man of Muslim background is complaining about the state of minorities in Europe as Islamophobia, antisemitism, anti-romani sentiments, racism and hostility towards refugees are normalized, especially with right-wing figures becoming increasingly powerful and prominent in EU politics, then don't question them, and read a book instead. But yeah defend the country that has a holiday dedicated to being racist.

[the-nyanguard-party]

sorry im new to your blog and im sorry if i sound really dumb and stuff with that.

this the post that i ment.

(1) one of my many problematic stances is i don't think the US military is ever a force for good or 'lesser evil' – @the-nyanguard-party on Tumblr

ok so my primary issue with "All militaries are evil" is that a state, including its military, has a class character.

from a marxist perspective, the state under capitalism is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. special bodies of armed men are organized to keep the working class under control and serve the interests of the capitalist class

in particular, the US military (as other imperial core, that is "first world," militaries) serves to forward their interests and preserve their place as an imperialist power. under imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism, the financial monopolies of a few nations (the imperial core, or "first world") come to control and exploit the whole world. the military of an imperialist power serves to exert control over other nations, and to fight in inter-imperialist conflicts for redivision of the world.

on the other hand, marxists stress the need for a dictatorship of the proletariat in order to move from capitalism, through socialism, to communism. as the bourgeoisie is overthrown, the proletariat takes power and must preserve it through force, organizing in a socialist state that can supress attempts at restoring capitalism both from within and without. the character of this state is fundamentally different, being under the control of the working class and serving its interests. this state cannot be abolished as long as the bourgeosie exists, to do so simply leaves the way open for the restoration of capitalism. in particular, it needs a military to defend itself from capitalist states. this is my main problem with the sentiment of "All militaries are evil"

furthermore, even the bourgeoisie (or at least a section of it) of nations oppressed and exploited by imperialist powers may, depending on circumstances, fight to assert their independence. we remain critical of bourgeois nationalism even in this context - our ultimate goal that we cannot abandon is the overthrow of capitalism everywhere in the world, this is the only way out of imperialism - but we recognize they can play a progressive role in weakening imperialism and in making it easier for the proletariat to gain power. this is a nuanced topic, i don't know if i expressed it very well. i'll leave it like this for brevity's sake. ultimately, for people in the imperial core, your primary enemy is your own state and you should be against your own imperialism no matter what form the anti-imperialism of the nation yours is exploiting takes.

[minipisi-is-dumb]

people don't believe that fascists rather see venezuela rot than see us free, this clown thinks that supporting a lesser of two evils makes me a white cracker zionist apparently. friendly reminder I am not white and not right wing. never put those words in my mouth.

also. since it seems like I have to spell it out on usamerican terms and political lenses so that people listen:

most of the venezuelan population is black and brown (including me) and y'all are silencing and ignoring our situation

maduro is an israel ally and trades with them since years ago, y'all downplaying his direct hand on this because he said free palestine one day before the elections is disgusting.

the US sanctions affected the nation, yes, but the nation was already at rock bottom by the time they were applied because of human rights violations, censorship, etc. don't defend the us but that doesn't mean maduro is a saint when he consistently steals money and resources from the nation while killing children and students

this isn't a left or right situation. this is a democracy vs dictatorship situation. this is a sovereignty vs human rights violations situation. have some common sense

It's insane that people hate the US more than you care about nations in the middle of a dictatorship that need support about our situation.

we don't want you to defend an imperialist nation because THIS ISN'T ABOUT THE UNITED STATES AND THEIR WHIMS, we want you to CONDEMN A DICTATOR and SHOW SUPPORT FOR THE CIVILIANS THAT CAN'T DEFEND THEMSELVES

share about venezuela every time you can if you're not in the country.

and if you are venezuelan, don't waste yourself with people that defend our suffering. we don't need it

[chronicallylatetotheparty]

I think western media has relied on non-human races as shorthand for oppressed groups so much that audiences have been primed to look for that instead of actual imperialist ideology.

One of the criticisms I've repeated about the Dragon Prince is how the writers take the Aesthetics of fantasy imperialism/indigenous people and just switch them without bothering to change anything about their ideology or historical context.

Kenna on TikTok was right when she said that a franchise where the oppressor and oppressed were all the same species makes a better racism allegory.

The fact that the Four Nations were all human added to the themes of imperialism and genocide in ATLA. While on the opposite side of the coin, the Xadians all being different species undermines it.

You can say Fire Nation people were a bunch of imperialists without going into bioessentialism. You CAN'T say humans are a bunch of warmongering monsters without sounding like an eco fascist.

The Sunfire elves textually being the most fantasy racist group is fine because they're elves, therefore oppressed, and the white writers made them superficially based on African-French speakers.

Meanwhile Katolis is "obviously" a Fantasy European Imperialist nation and therefore the oppressor. Never mind that it's had a black, now mixed, ruling family for a thousand years. Or that it's citizens aren't just white.

I remember seeing a post comparing the taboo against Black Magic to Xtian fundamentalism. At first I thought that was a bit much but no. Season six revealed that TDP has a canonical Hierarchy of Beings so that guy was absolutely right.

In Xtian fundamentalism doing something good the "wrong" way is the same as doing something bad.

Save a kingdom from starving? Well you had to kill a rock monster so obviously the right thing to do was let hundreds of thousands of people starve to death. (I've had weirdos go onto my posts and literally say this.)

Break the chains preventing you from saving the people you love? Well it hurt you so the right thing to do was let your friends and loved ones drown I guess.

Your son is dying? Better protect some old man's sense of moral purity than save a child.

All of these actions are not considered bad because they had a negative effect. They're considered bad because they go against the dominant power's desired order.

They're inherently bad because "humans" are inherently bad. Because human ways are not as pure as a direct connection to an Arcanum.

Note: this^ is imperialist ideology.

The idea that a group of people fighting for their survival justifies ethnic cleansing and mass murder is imperialist ideology.

The idea that the scary, blasphemous practices of a people you don't understand makes them dangerous, and therefore justifies you "defending yourself", is imperialist ideology.

The Liberal focus on "cycles of violence" and "both sides are at fault". Instead of on reparations for the people they killed and the homes they destroyed is imperialist ideology.

But Katolis has a pseudo-medieval aesthetic and the elves do not.

I was so angry at the scene where Sol Regem burns Katolis because THIS is the poor helpless dragons the humans "colonized"!? This living air bomber is the "victim" of the big, bad humans? One Archdragon can destroy an entire city single handedly and you expect me to believe the elves and dragons ethnic cleansing of humanity was REASONABLE!?

No. We are past any doubt or rationalization. What Sol Regem did to Katolis was just a small glimpse of what the elves and dragons did during the Human Exile. Just a small glimpse into how imperialist powers treat those that they cannot exploit.

And then demonize them for daring to oppose/question/subvert the imperialist's god(s) given superiority.

[jewreallythinkthat]

I don't know who needs to hear this but:

The British Mandate of Palestine =/= the State of Palestine.

There has never been a Palestinian state. That's not trying to justify anything or whatever, it's just the fucking history. The area now known as Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories was once "Judea" the homeland of the Jewish People, a self governing region/country/area. It was then colonised by multiple empires, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Arab Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire the British, Empire. None of these are a Palestinian states; these are all the result of imperialist colonising ideologies.

There could have been a self determined state in 1948 but instead there was a war because proto-Israel was attacked and defended herself.

If you need to rewrite history to justify your hate, maybe you're not as progressive as you want to think you are.

Edit: as I've said many times, I'm very pro 2-state solution. This post is not about that but I will not have this being used by other people to straw man me and lie about my beliefs

[txttletale]

yo i really like your content and agree with you on most things but i don't really know what you mean with that last one. my friends from ukraine both oppose the war's existence but would rather not be violently annexed by an imperial power so of course they, with little other options, support resistance efforts.

it's really hard for me to understand what you're going for because if ukraine stopped fighting back it'd just get taken by russia. maybe i just have bad brainfog, but it's hard to understand what you're asking us to do and believe. should we try and take out both the russian and american imperialist powers at once? but that's unrealistic and unlikely to happen in the near future, no matter how much i personally support it, which i do.

i guess my question is, what's an actual realistic thing we should support in the meantime? we can't just pretend that somehow revolution will take out both american and russian imperialist interests immediately, so. it's like, well yes we should have a better world playing by better rules, but how do we do the right thing when we are bound by the rules now.

i have friends who have family who died in the war, and sometimes it feels like bloggers i otherwise trust say things that sound suspiciously close to "ukraine should stop this pointless fighting and give up." which i am aware isn't your intention, and i want to be an effective anti imperialist and have the correct and informed opinions on stuff like this, but i am having a very hard time understanding what you are trying to say.

i really promise i am not a concern troll or nato apologist or anything, i just also have personally been struggling with what to support and how to save innocent lives. i hate war and i wish we could magically create a situation in which ukraine didn't have to rely on horrible things for self defense. i just don't know what to do or believe because my friends would rightfully hate me if i said ukraine should stop defending itself.

i mean, first off: don't worry, you obviously don't sound like a concern troll or a nato apologist. this is an eminently reasonable question -- healed's law strikes again. & i certainly don't blame you for worrying that marxist-leninists are apologists for russian imperialism, because unfortunately many self-proclaimed marxist-leninists have been deceived by the frankly paper-thin figleaf of 'denazificaiton'--even as putin, puppet of the russian bourgeoisie denounces lenin & the bolsheviks & the soviet union with every speech he makes. it sucks!

first of all, i think the important thing here and the central point of disagreement is on what constitutes 'ukraine'. liberals and nationalists alike consider nations to be fundamentally one whole: that all the people of ukraine together constitute 'ukraine', and so 'ukraine as a whole' has consistent interests, and acts as a one--the ukrainian government represents this unitary ukraine armed forces of ukraine fight for this ukraine.

but the marxist analysis of the nation is completely different. from the marxist perspective, the nation is split across class lines. ukraine is not 'ukrainians', but in fact 'the ukrainian working class' and 'the ukrainian bourgeoisie'. now, of course, there are further contradictions even within these classes--there is a faction of pro-Russian bourgeoisie, and a faction of pro-Western bourgeoisie. but remember, we must apply the same analysis to these countries too: the 'pro-Russian' Ukrainian bourgeoisie do not wish to submit to Russia's working class, but to their oligarchs. the 'pro-Western' Ukrainian bourgeoisie are not opening the nation's economy to the European and USAmerican working class, but to their bourgeoisie. so the bourgeoisie are, in every case--even when split among themselves--only ever in league with other sectors of the bourgeoisie.

so, through this lens, how do we see the war in ukraine? well, i think that the union of communists in ukraine must have a far better handle on this than i, because they're living through it: so i will quote their analysis and then elucidate on it in relation to your question.

The puppet regime in Ukraine participates in this war in the interests of Ukrainian oligarchs, who have made themselves completely dependent on big capital of the West and NATO, who have turned the Ukrainian army into an advanced military unit of the Western bourgeoisie. The war is not about "the Ukrainian nation," not about "the Ukrainian language and culture," not even about "European values". It is a war for the united interests of the Ukrainian and international bourgeoisie, which coincide in their desire to destroy the economic and political power of the Russian bourgeoisie. No interests or rights of Ukrainian workers are protected by this war. Both Ukrainian and Russian workers in this war have only the right and obligation to go to the front and die so that one group of the world bourgeoisie defeats the other and gains more monopoly rights to oppress the workers, both in their own country and in the defeated countries. […] For the working class of Ukraine, this imperialist war has the most tragic consequences. It lies on the shoulders of the workers the role of "cannon fodder" and the inevitable deaths in the fighting, mass impoverishment, unemployment, complete restrictions of rights and freedoms for the sake of protecting the interests of the Ukrainian big bourgeoisie, the oligarchs and the interests of the Western bourgeoisie in destroying and robbing Russia and seizing its natural resources. This will inevitably be accompanied by the destruction and seizure of Ukrainian industrial and natural resources, including in the case of Russia's success. The same fate awaits the vast majority of the Ukrainian petty bourgeoisie. The big bourgeoisie has already bought its children out of the war and taken them abroad, just as it took its capitals out. But that is not the main point: the big bourgeoisie is profiting from the war under Zelensky, just as it profited under Poroshenko: stealing finances, making money from reselling weapons, supplying the army with uniforms, food, repair work, humanitarian aid, etc. In war the bourgeoisie makes billions of dollars, while the mobilized people have to be equipped and fed by relatives, friends and volunteers – which is clearly not enough. As in peacetime, but even more brazenly, the bourgeoisie is getting rich off the bones of the working class!

—Union of Communists of Ukraine, On the War and the tasks of the working class

that is to say--the russian army, which is funded by the russian bourgeoisie, is fighting to establish the exclusive right of that russian bourgeoisie to oppress and exploit the ukrainian people. meanwhile, the ukrainian army, funded by the ukrainian and western bourgeoisie more broadly, are fighting to maintain the exclusive right of the ukrainian and western to oppress and exploit the ukrainian people. already, ukrainian public assets are being put up in a fire sale for western buyers--(and of course, should russia's offensive have been as succesful as they'd hoped and this war already over, they'd be doing much the same thing for the benefit of buyers among the russian bourgeoisie).

this is what is meant by 'inter-imperialist' war. it's easy to say 'well, the ukrainian army isn't imperialist--it's fighting for the nation's independence!' but in terms of real economic interests there is no 'the nation'. the ukrainian army isn't fighting for the ukrainian working class (which of course includes themselves!)--the government that pays them and the states that equip them wouldn't do so out of any sense of interest in the well-being of the working class. we can see this clearly as the western imperialist powers now start to equip the ukrainian army with depleted uranium shells, which will poison swathes of ukrainian land and cause sickness and death among the people this army purports to be fighting for. the goal of the ukrainian state and army isn't to protect any working class people--only to protect its total right to the economic exploitation of those people.

it's this that the ukrainian state is afraid of when it fights not to cede territory, not the (surely real, to be clear!) brutality from the russian state that would face the inhabitants of any such ceded territory. in fact, funding nazi groups that operated in those areas before the war and will surely continue to operate afterwards, the ukrainian govenrment makes it clear that brutality against the inhabitants of its eastern provinces alone does not phase it, so long as the ukrainian bourgeoisie (& their western bourgeoisie patrons) continue to be the ones profiting off the region's people and resources.

elsewhere in the article the UCU observe the same thing that can be observed by those outside of ukraine by listening to the words of zelenskyy and the ukrainian government's allies--that even the goal of 'protecting its people' [read: protecting exclusive economic/extractive access to those people] has been sidelined by the dream of a total or partial obliteration of the russian bourgeoisie entirely--not for any moral or anti-imperialist reason, but simply so that the ukrainian/western bourgeoisie no longer have competition.

[...] the goals of warfare are changing. If at the first stage of the civil conflict the Ukrainian regime aimed to restore state control over the Ukrainian territories, where this control was lost, then at the second stage it aimed to destroy Russia as a condition for the existence of Ukraine.

—ibid.

so--now that i've really dug into the precise nature of this war and why it's being waged on both sides, i'll answer some of your points directly:

if ukraine stopped fighting back it'd just get taken by russia "ukraine should stop this pointless fighting and give up."

both of these positions, both the one you hold yourself and the one you worry about others expressing, assume that what the ukrainian armed forces with NATO backing and full-throated embrace of fascist paramilitaries is doing constitutes 'ukraine' 'fighting back' against 'russia'. but it doesn't--it represents the ukrainian bourgeoisie fighting back against the russian bourgeoisie.

so, the big question--do i think that the ukrainian proletariat should abandon armed resistance against the russian invasion? absolutely not!

genuine popular resistance against the russian invasion is heroic and commendable--i am under no belief whatsoever that in the face of imperialist war the ukrainian people should not arm themselves and fight against the imperialists. i just reject the framing of the actual war as prosecuted as constituting this, because, to go back to what i've already established, there is not in fact one 'ukraine' but two--only one of which constitutes in a mieaningful sense the ukrainian people. i don't believe (and neither do the UCU, whose analysis i base mine on somewhat) that 'the war' as you ponder 'supporting' constitutes the ukrainian proletariat arming themselves or fighting against imperialism on their own behalf, but rather being armed by the bourgeoisie and fighting on their behalf.

and obviously i'm not an idiot who's blind to the actual numerial and material realities. the communist, anti-imperialist movement in ukraine, just like in most of the world, is completely dwarfed by imperialism and its footsoldiers. 'the ukrainian proletariat as self-armed acting organization rising up and challenging both imperialisms and freeing itself from both sets of bourgeoisie' is not something that's gonna happen tomorrow, and it's not an immediately actionable plan--no ukrainian communist can wake up tomorrow and say 'well, today i shall hit the big proletarian revolution button'.

the realities are that as the meeting ground between two imperialisms, ukrainian communists have to make decisions about which one they can most ably fight, might need to temporarily align themselves with or allow themselves to benefit from the ukrainian bourgeoise state--but never support it. like any bourgeoise state, a communist should know the ukrainian state is an enemy of the proletariat. yes, the pressing material realities on the ground might well make cooperation with that bourgeoise state the best temporary option--but 'cooperation' should never mean 'support' or 'loyalty', and should be done only tactically with ultimately loyalties remaining above all else with the working class.

in fact, refusing to offer the government and army a show of support and valorization is a key element of creating the conditions--radicalization, agitation--that would allow the proletariat to effectively rise up and truly combat imperialism, rather than choose under which imperialist heel they would rather be ground into dust. don't support an end to the war on either imperialist bloc's terms, but rather on proletarian terms--understand that the state of ukraine is not on the side of the ukrainian people, except tangentially, in individual moments of necessary alliance. raise awareness of the true war, the class war, and resist the ukrainian state's claims to stand with the people when it pursues the interests of the bourgeoisie.

tldr: the anti-imperialist position is not that the ukrainian proletariat should not be fighting, or that their fight is not worth supporting. the anti-imperialist action, therefore, is to draw the most awareness possible to this division within 'ukraine' among the working class themselves, make them aware of the realities of the economic condition. this is of course the foremost anti-imperialist and communist task across the entire world, because it is only through creating organizations of the working class that will fight for the working class can international imperialism be dfeated.

i'll leave this answer off by adding what the UCU said about this very topic in the same statement i've been quoting:

We understand the complexity and danger of these tasks, which inevitably cause repression on the part of the bourgeois political regimes. That is why workers' and communist organizations will need to develop illegal forms of class struggle along with legal ones in order to set and implement such tasks. The UCU has been forced to conduct its work in illegal forms since 2014. Many workers' and communist organizations may consider these antiwar tasks impossible because of their organizational weakness and lack of influence on the working class. However, historical experience shows that a correct and honest formulation of the tasks of the working class in conditions of war – real, not momentary tasks – may not yield success immediately, but will yield gains as the revolutionary situation intensifies. Since the task of destroying capitalist social relations is an international task, the international coordination of workers' and communist parties' actions, including the joint elaboration of tasks for the struggle against the imperialist war of the twenty-first century for the sake of uniting the international struggle against this war, for a communist reorganization of society and world peace, is becoming increasingly important. Proletarians of all countries, unite! 

[weirdestcountryhumans]

Colonizer x Colony Ships: Why It's a Bad Portrayal and Something People Should Move Away From

Because these kinds of ships are far too common in this fandom, and people need to learn to recognize that they are incredibly offensive at times.

The Defense of These Ships

Many people defend these ships by claiming that the colonizer country feels guilt over what they did or that they were not involved in the brutality of colonization and were unwilling bystanders. Some claim that the colonization occurred because they "loved" the person they were colonizing and colonizing them so they could be together.

These ideas are, at their core, racist. That is not to say the people who ship them are racist, but these ideas originate in real-life racism, racist propaganda, and racist ideology. White Man's Burden (link) is exceptionally present in this.

These defenses also excuse the colonizer from the consequences of their own actions, excusing them from the ideals of their country to portray them as more innocent. I am not saying they cannot grow; I am just saying that in the 1800s, Britain wasn't going to be anti-imperialist. They don't see their actions through a modern lens and will be assholes (by modern standards) and bigots. They will not be the modern image of progression in those periods. And even if you have them get together after the postcolonial period, that does not erase the pain they caused that country.

It is insensitive at best and racist at worst. Please think things through before you create ships like these. To support my point, I have created a small list of popular colonizer x colony ships. I will go over a bit of the history between the two and why that illustrates why they shouldn't be shipped, as well as any problematic tropes I notice.

Ship Examples and why they don't work

Netherlands x Indonesia

This ship has always confused me. I really don't see much of a basis for it. One, if you have colonies be the children of empires; Indonesia is in a relationship with his parent. Two, even if you don't have that, the Dutch still committed many war crimes in Indonesia, like the Banda Islands Massacre, as well as inflaming ethnic tensions so they could get cheap war slaves, and ergo enslaving many people from the ethnic population. There is also evidence of torture of these slaves and some female slaves being used as sex slaves.

The Dutch's greed for money often led to famines as the local farmers were put under heavy stress, and the coolie indentured labor system was rife with abuses. Many war crimes were also committed during the Indonesian War of Independence. While modern relations are better, it does not erase these crimes, and I think this ship is very insensitive.

Japan x South Korea

Yeah, guys, Japan colonized Korea. Now, while what I am going to explain applies to both Koreas, I am specifying South Korea simply because I see that more.

Let's start with comfort women. Now, if you haven't heard of them, they were women and girls forced into sexual slavery by Japan during World War two. Since Korea was one of Imperial Japan's earliest colonies, many of the comfort women were Korean. They also began a period of Japanization, banning Korean names and the Korean language.

In the modern day, about 79% of South Koreans view Japan negatively, only being beaten out of the most negative perception of Japan by China.

Both modern relations and history show that Japan and South Korea would not be in a relationship, and I don't even think they would be friends. Japan's history with South Korea (and North Korea) has never been positive, and I do not think that this is a good ship, especially considering that their relations are still not great. It is very insensitive to the horrific war crimes that Japan has committed against the Korean people.

Sunshine Harem

This is singlehandedly the reason I made my Philippines AroAce—out of spite and hatred of this pinnacle of insensitivity. This is not only shipping the Philippines with one colonizer but every single person who had ever colonized him (aside from that one period of time during the Seven Years War when Britain was governing the island).

I am going to go through each person and explain why shipping the Philippines with them is bad, even though I really shouldn't need to point out that shipping the Philippines with three of his colonizers is bad.

Let's start with Spain. Now, out of all the people who colonized the Philippines, I know the least about Spain's actions. But, in typical Spanish fashion, war crimes were committed, with massacres being committed, as well as Hispanicization, as well as hundreds of years of revolts against the Spanish. There is no basis for a good relationship with so many years of bad blood. While modern relationships are okay, considering that some people have colonies as the children of empires, it feels a little like incest, or at the very least, having a massive power imbalance.

Next up is the good ol' US of A. Surprise surprise. The United States promised to give the Filipinos independence after the Spanish-American war, and they turned their back on them and made the Philippines a colony. What followed next was the Philippine-American War, a war in which the United States committed several war crimes, such as killing civilians (some of which were children), creating concentration camps for Filipino civilians, and torturing Filipino prisoners through waterboarding (link). This is a small sampling, but it proves how horrible things were.

Not only were there these horrific crimes but there was also a period of Americanization in the Philippines. While the United States did eventually give the Philippines their independence and liberate the country from Japan, that does not erase their record, nor does it abolish the legacy of these crimes. I cannot see the Philippines ever wanting to date the United States because of this.

And lastly, we have Japan. Like in Korea, many Filipino women and girls were forced into sexual slavery. The Japanese also forced Filipino soldiers into concentration camps where tens of thousands of them died from disease and poor conditions and turned the Filipino government into a puppet state. Citizens were also murdered and tortured by the Kempeitai, Japan's secret police.

That is just a summary of the war crimes committed by Japan while occupying the Philippines during WW2. It baffles me that anyone would ship them together. The Philippines would have lived through this. Do you think he would want to date Japan, even if it wasn't the empire of Japan? While Filipino-Japanese relations are much better than they were then, this is still a horrific subject.

Please, just look into their histories.

England x Ireland

Yes, Ireland was a colony of England (and later the UK) for around 800 years, from 1169 to 1918. During that time period, Ireland was subjected to anti-Catholic laws, laws banning certain aspects of Irish culture, Anglicisation, and ethnic cleansing (link), as well as the Irish Famine, which some argue is a genocide. I am not here to get into that debate, but I know pointing out that word will make you pay attention.

Ireland has lost a lot of its culture due to English colonization and laws, and there is a reason why the Irish do not like the English. This ship makes no sense and is insensitive to 800 years of colonization and struggles that the Irish went through in an attempt to keep their culture, language, and identity. There is far too much history for me to list here, but this ship is based on nothing. It is based on a terrible history that far too many people brush aside. Like with so many others on this list, it is insensitive.

Even with modern relations being better, the people of Ireland do not like the English, and this ship, to me, as an Irish citizen, feels like a slap in the face. There is no basis for this ship that makes an ounce of sense.

Israel x Palestine

I have seen this one before. It sickens me, especially with what is currently happening in Gaza. What I hate even more is when people portray it as if Palestine is the instigator of the relationship or that Palestine is forcing Israel into it. I shouldn't need to explain why this ship is horrific and completely senseless.