#tw // genocide

[guldaastan]

source

[the-microphone-explodes]

Well for one thing, you (or the West for that matter) didn’t create the word genocide, it was coined by a Polish-Jewish lawyer named Raphael Lemkin. In his book, the Axis Rule in Occupied Europe he showed his research of the way the Nazi occupied Europe and narrated how he thought the crimes the Nazi committed against the Polish during their occupation came down to 5 main policies that displayed their will to completely destroy the Polish nation which included:

1) The mass killings of Poles

2) Bringing “serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group”,

3) Planned deterioration of living conditions "calculated to bring about their destruction

4) Implementation of various "measures intended to to prevent births within the group" such as promotion of abortions, burdening pregnant women, etc.

5) Forced transfer of Polish children to German families

He used these instances as proof for the Nazi plan to completely terminate the Polish identity and these markers are still used by the Genocide Convention as proof of genocidal intentions. He also used this word to describe the atrocities that Nazi committed against the Jewish people during the Holocaust. Lemkin also spent the rest of his time advocating for an international convention to stop the rise of “future Hitlers”, and on December 9, 1948 the U.N. authorized the Genocide Convention, which had many of its clauses based on Lemkin’s own research and proposals.

Also this is a very narrow idea of racism and discrimination. Anti-semitism was rampant in American and Western society years before Hitler came into power. I mean in 1942, American literally turned away a boat load of Jewish people seeking refuge. People didn’t look at Jews and think “Oh man they look just like us, so their murders must be important and we have to create a word that describes their condition and the crimes being committed against because we care sooooo much about them”. In reality, most people didn’t really given a shit about all of the Jews being murdered, only when America and the West was being directly threatened by war did they retaliate.

So no, the West didn’t coin the word Genocide to describe the atrocities that Nazi Germany inflicted because the victims looked like them or whatever, the word was created by Polish-Jewish lawyer to describe the oppression that his people were put under.

[mysharona1987]

[el-smacko]

Something I haven’t seen talked about is that the Super Bowl Americans distracted themselves with during the terror bombing of Rafah—the latest manifestation of the Gaza Genocide—featured the “Chiefs,” named for the victims of US genocide, and the “49ers,” named for an instigating faction in the California Genocide.

I saw this map today

Of the THIRD most spoken language behind English and Spanish in every state. Notice of course that the languages reflect massive displacements from victims of US empire, but also that more states’ tertiary language is German or French than an indigenous language.

The American ideology and its representative culture factually inspired the Holocaust. The American West was the model for the Nazi East.

Trump lost in 2020 and the US is still enabling a genocide, despite ostensibly being “anti-fascist.”

The United States IS genocide. Its biblically-esteemed founding documents prescribe ethnic cleansing and apartheid. The American soldier, subject to bipartisan fawning, is the universal symbol not of freedom and democracy, but of oppression and tyranny.

Any critical lens beyond the usual Western hagiography will show that fascism did not lose the Second World War, it just evolved into liberalism.

[guerrillatech]

Israel is still bombing Gaza even as it reigns bombs down on Lebanon

[thekhaninglass]

The truth - as we have painstakingly established across the previous chapters - is this. There is no idea so grand that it may not be murdered one day in the slumber of its own complacence.

There is no tool which may not be repurposed, no meaning which will not turn to nonsense - given time.

Time is the cruellest and the kindest deity, for it mocks those who seek to triumph from it; for it suffers no power, humours no tyrant; it topples every great justice, dismembers reason, rots progress, forgets the stories we laid down at its feet.

@thesiltverses - Chapter 41

[genericpuff]

Remembrance Day doesn't hit so well a week after half the U.S. voted in a literal Nazi.

[dailyworldcinema]

The reality of these camps — despised by those who built them, unfathomable to those who endured them — we try in vain to capture what remains.

NIGHT AND FOG (1956) Nuit et brouillard dir. Alain Resnais

[destielmemenews]

source 1

source 2

source 3

Wikipedia page for Genocide Convention

[ideasfromanotherapocalypse]

As of about two days ago (so around the 5th of March) the Artsakh Freedom Fighters Union and National Assembly buildings in Stepanakert, Nagorno Karabakh, have both been demolished.

It really is depressing to see the destruction of Armenian monuments happening again, to say nothing of the 100,000 or so Armenians displaced by Azerbaijan moving in back in September (over 80% of the regions population).

[hussyknee]

I want you to bear witness to what your people are complicit in.

What your governments, the leaders you hold your nose and vote for do.

What people who "refuse to take a stance" because they "don't know enough" are really saying.

What you're asking when you demand that Palestinians condemn Hamas.

When you try to defend Zionism and the "two state solution".

What is meant by "Israel defending itself".

I want you to think about what you're saying when you say you're too exhausted to keep up with the current political issues.

You can't open any other social media without seeing live footage of buildings ablaze and maimed children screaming and the bright, smiling pictures of the dead. I want you to think about why Tumblr, that famously skews white American, is only platform where even the tag only has a few hundred notes on most posts.

If any of you Westerners want to invoke Nazism as the epitome of fascist, genocidal evil, against whom any amount of collective punishment is justified, you might want to take a good look in the mirror first. Then maybe you'll understand what we mean when we say that all evil is human.

[tectonicatomic]

Happy holidays! Have some trauma-processing narilamb

(I meant to post this during drawtober for the genocide prompt, but I severely underestimated the amount of time I needed to actually complete it. I’m glad to be done!)

[slyandthefamilybook]

*game show host voice* thaaaaaaaat's genociiiiiiide!!!

[thespookiestprincessofthemall]

[guerrillatech]

Israel has bombed another hospital in Gaza.

[starlight-bread-blog]

The Good & the Bad: On Aang (Not) Killing the Fire Lord

I recived this asks forever ago, trurly sorry anon, but I'll keep my apologises for the end. I'd love to answer that!

If you're asking me, this is way better than """killing him""". Case closed.

Getting this cleared up: The show didn't say that Aang is morally superior for this. It was solely about staying true to himself. Not a moral high ground.

So when I hear people say it's problematic because it implies that sparing imperialistic dictators has some intrinsic goodness to it, (Ahem-Lily Orchard), I just can't agree. It was never about universal ethics, it was about Aang's culture and values.

Why Is This a Good Thing?

Aang loves his culture, and takes a lot of pride in it and its values. (See: in The Southern Raiders his first go-to to convince Katara to spare Yon Rah is his culture, rather than what such act would do Katara herself). He would have been ashamed if he had broken them. But right now they clash with his Avatar duties, with god-knows how many lives at stake. He needs to let go of his pride & shame, and become humble.

Just like Zuko humbling himself to the GAang before they accept him, or Sokka humbling himself to the Kyoshi warriors and Master Piandao, Aang could only speak to the the lion turtle after he'd given up, after he was humbled.

Even beyond Aang, it enhances the show's themes at large. A theme in A:TLA is paving your own path, and that you can do what you want despite the pressure. Your true destiny will come, you might be surprised by it, but it's yours and you're free to carve it.

You just have to keep going, to continue to do the right thing, and your destiny will find you. Things have a way of working out in the end, eventually.

Sparing Ozai serves the theme, thus the show overall. Everyone told him it's his destiny to kill the Fire Lord and end the war. But he didn't agree, paving his own path, his own destiny, and all was well. The pieces fell in their place.

It is s amplified by the fact that if you read between the lines, he actually did follow all the previous Avatars' wisdom besides Yangchen's.

Aang knew what he wanted from the start. He isn't going to kill the Fire Lord. People (rightfully) tried to pressure him, but in the end, he stuck to his decision.

Justice was served. Aang took his bending away and put him to rot in prison for the rest of his life. There's more than one way to execute justice.

"... and the destiny of the world". That's exactly what Aang did. He followed his own path (staying true to himself) while saving the world (ending Ozai regime).

So that leaves us with Yangchen's advice. The one he didn't follow:

This opens another layer to this. Why doesn't Aang take the advice of a fellow Air Nomad? The one he should relate to the most? Because despite both being Avatars and Airbenders, Aang is the last. They're not the same. Yangchen is speaking from a place of privilege. She can carry the weight of the Avatar and not worry about the Air Nomads. Notice the wording: "spiritual needs". But it's deeper than that. In her time, they were there, they'll preserve their culture and values. Aang doesn't have that.

He's Avatar: The Last Airbender. He has both weights to carry. The decision to spare the Fire Lord, while protecting the rest of the world, is embedded in the show's title.

There's also something so incredibly powerful in Ozai being defeated specifically with Air Nomad values. A 100 years ago, during Sozin's Comet, the Fire Nation started the war by genociding them. When it comes back, the Avatar, the last Air Nomad, ends the war and stops the next genocide while preserving their values. The Fire Nation isn't going to push him to taint (one of) the last living aspacts of the Air Nomads, and Aang is shouting it – in the very same day the disaster occurred.

(Additionally I view this as a land mark of his character development since Siege of the North. He used spirit powers for murder, now he's using them for mercy).

(A:TLA is also a show made with kids in mind. They may not be able to make Aang kill Ozai. He got his bending stolen and sentenced to prison for the rest of his life. That's a more than serviceable punishment for a show aimed at kids).

(Ps: If Ozai had died Zuko would never have found out where his mother is).

The concept is fantastic. Nothing wrong there. But now, it's time for the critisism.

What's the problem then?

Despite looking in internet forums, it's entirely possible that I missed some things. With that being said, the Lion Turtles could have been foreshadowed better. As I stated, I don't mind it. But as far as I recall, it was foreshadowed once in The Library, and that's it. (Edit: It's also foreshadowed in Sokka's Master and The Beach, but the point still stands).

The Lion Turtle is a twist, it subverted expectations, but that doesn't mean it has to be a deus ex machina. That's what foreshadowing is for. It's the literary device to making a plot twist feel believable. The result is many fans, including me, feeling as though it came out of no where, even though it didn't.

Overall, I love that Aang spared Ozai. It ties into the themes of the show and Aang's role as the last airbender. It makes perfect sense, it's rather beautiful. However, I do wish the foreshadowing was better.

And for Anon, to apologize for the wait, I dedicate you this meme: