Let’s bracket the “was the USSR in the right?” question, and let’s ask the “how brutal was the Soviet clampdown on these two uprisings?”
1956 Hungary: 2000-3000 killed by the USSR
1968 Prague: 137 killed by the USSR
How does this compare to clampdowns by NATO countries (excluding the US)?
Indonesian National Revolution against the Dutch: 100 000 Indonesians killed by the Dutch
Algerian War of Independence: 250 000 killed by the French (French estimate) - 1.5 Million (Algerian estimate)
French War against Vietnamese Independence: 200 000 dead
Portuguese Colonial Wars: 70,000–110,000 civilians killed by Portugal
Mau Mau Uprising against the UK: "Officially the number of Mau Mau and other rebels killed was 11,000, including 1,090 convicts hanged by the British administration. The Kenya Human Rights Commission has said 90,000 Kenyans were executed, tortured or maimed during the crackdown, and 160,000 were detained in appalling conditions. "
This is a non-exhaustive list with estimates. That actual brutality is not conveyed. The war crimes are often comparable to the Waffen SS.
You get the idea: the colonial powers were incomparably worse.
There’s also a point here in how if you have to kill a bunch of people to fight a movement, and still lose, that means you’re fighting a genuinely popular movement. But if it takes orders of magnitude less violence to fight a movement, and the movement fails, how popular was it to begin with?
Comparing different countries’ actions in similar circumstances is the very foundation of international law. “The international community didn’t consider this similar incident a breach of international law, so it shouldn’t consider my much smaller version of the same thing a breach” isn’t whataboutism, it’s an argument advanced in and accepted by the ICJ all the time.
These types of comparisons usually aren’t even used to excuse anything, either (and they aren’t used that way here). The point of the comparison is to ask “do you have a principled opposition to this act that you would apply universally?”
According to lexicographer Ben Zimmer,[13] the term originated in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. Zimmer cites a 1974 letter by history teacher Sean O’Conaill which was published in The Irish Times where he complained about “the Whatabouts”, people who defended the IRA by pointing out supposed wrongdoings of their enemy:
I would not suggest such a thing were it not for the Whatabouts. These are the people who answer every condemnation of the Provisional I.R.A. with an argument to prove the greater immorality of the “enemy”, and therefore the justice of the Provisionals’ cause: “What about Bloody Sunday, internment, torture, force-feeding, army intimidation?”. Every call to stop is answered in the same way: “What about the Treaty of Limerick; the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921; Lenadoon?”. Neither is the Church immune: “The Catholic Church has never supported the national cause. What about Papal sanction for the Norman invasion; condemnation of the Fenians by Moriarty; Parnell?”
— Sean O’Conaill, “Letter to Editor”, The Irish Times, 30 Jan 1974
Good example of how claims of whataboutism are used to remove actual important context from a discussion.
And you are using it again. Because the term was coined by English oppressors, than it shouldn’t true… Always the same answer to everything, my beloved dictator/political system/whatever is not really terrible, because I can point to something even worse
Let’s see, “colonials are not as terrible, because what the Nazis did, and Jews were white people” Same as your reasoning.
And you are using it again. Because the term was coined by English oppressors, than it shouldn’t true…
Christ- this is deeply unserious. Do you understand how the British used it to deflect from the idea that IRA violence and British colonialism were connected? The British were saying “it is a logical fallacy to talk about our violence that creates the resistance, we are talkng about how the resistance is using violence and how that means they’re bad”
Always the same answer to everything, my beloved dictator/political system/whatever is not really terrible, because I can point to something even worse
Do you see all violence as divorced from other violence?
Let’s see, “colonials are not as terrible, because what the Nazis did, and Jews were white people” Same as your reasoning.
The Nazis were a colonial power, Jesus Christ, Mary, and Joseph, did you learn nothing about fascism in school?
By the holocaust Germany lost all their colonies, after WW1, so again, I don’t how this is related here. Jews were living within Germany for centuries. And the point was it doesn’t matter in relation to other attrocities.
Russia was also a colonial power, and one of the last which is still one, ask a Yakut guy or someone from the northern Caucasus. So it should be also added there?
You do understand the whole fascism thing relied on getting new colonies, right? They even did the whole manifest destiny thing.
And the point was it doesn’t matter in relation to other attrocities.
The point is that they’re in the same bucket as other colonial atrocities
Russia was also a colonial power, and one of the last which is still one, ask a Yakut guy or someone from the northern Caucasus. So it should be also added there?
Weren’t you the one complaining about whataboutism? Also yes, we can view the Russian empire and the Russian federation as imperialist projects.
“Both sides” is when you equivocate two things which are not equal, you’re looking for “whataboutism” which is not an actual fallacy, claiming “you’re doing whataboutism” was a PR tactic first used by British colonizers when Irish people brought up British violence in response to anti-IRA propaganda.
I would submit that sometimes “whataboutism” can be related to the issue of topicality in a debate, though. If not addressed properly topicality issues will inevitably derail a discussion as is their nature.
it get that they’re both bad faith ways to shut down discourse and i can see how whataboutism fits; but i was referring to the false equivalency placed between the nato’s atrocities and that of the soviet union’s in the comment
when it’s “both sides” is brought up to shutdown arguments that the democrats have done some of the same things that the republicans did; they’re likewise implying that the democrats have fewer of such incidents than the republicans and therefore the argument is invalid.
this was my half snarky way of saying that this comment is a “both sides” example can be applied in the opposite direction where it neuters the effect that “both sides” has with liberals.
“Yes, the USSR performed atrocities, but the fact that the west has as well excuses that.”
It’s not like those are the only two instances of human rights violations by the USSR, and they’re infamous for lying about numbers.
Misery is not s competition. You don’t have to pick sides. There can be more than one violent authoritarian regime in the world, they can all be bad, and you can oppose all of them. There’s really no reason to defend any imperial powers.
“Yes, the USSR performed atrocities, but the fact that the west has as well excuses that.”
I don’t think that’s what Kieselguhr was trying to say.
As I see it, they are simply pointing out that, when ever the USSR does something bad the west are quick to let you know all about it and how EVIL the USSR is, but when the west does something bad or worst, they don’t seem so eager to let you know about it. It’s not that the west did something bad, it’s that they usually don’t tell you anything about it, but at happy to show the atrocities the others have committed.
But I’m not them so I guess we could ask them to clarify.
I actually support the side which is magnitudes less violent. And there is a difference between killing fascists like the Soviets did and killing anti-colonial freedom fighters but mostly civilians like the colonial powers did.
Let’s bracket the “was the USSR in the right?” question, and let’s ask the “how brutal was the Soviet clampdown on these two uprisings?”
How does this compare to clampdowns by NATO countries (excluding the US)?
This is a non-exhaustive list with estimates. That actual brutality is not conveyed. The war crimes are often comparable to the Waffen SS.
You get the idea: the colonial powers were incomparably worse.
Off topic: It’s times/comments like these that I wish people kept in mind when they start clamouring for defederation
There’s also a point here in how if you have to kill a bunch of people to fight a movement, and still lose, that means you’re fighting a genuinely popular movement. But if it takes orders of magnitude less violence to fight a movement, and the movement fails, how popular was it to begin with?
tankie to the rescue withsome important context to keep in mind
While your points are true, here is an interesting and recommended reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Comparing different countries’ actions in similar circumstances is the very foundation of international law. “The international community didn’t consider this similar incident a breach of international law, so it shouldn’t consider my much smaller version of the same thing a breach” isn’t whataboutism, it’s an argument advanced in and accepted by the ICJ all the time.
These types of comparisons usually aren’t even used to excuse anything, either (and they aren’t used that way here). The point of the comparison is to ask “do you have a principled opposition to this act that you would apply universally?”
Oh, i liked this section
Good example of how claims of whataboutism are used to remove actual important context from a discussion.
1614 is the older term in English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
And you are using it again. Because the term was coined by English oppressors, than it shouldn’t true… Always the same answer to everything, my beloved dictator/political system/whatever is not really terrible, because I can point to something even worse
Let’s see, “colonials are not as terrible, because what the Nazis did, and Jews were white people” Same as your reasoning.
Whataboutism is only sometimes tu quoque.
Christ- this is deeply unserious. Do you understand how the British used it to deflect from the idea that IRA violence and British colonialism were connected? The British were saying “it is a logical fallacy to talk about our violence that creates the resistance, we are talkng about how the resistance is using violence and how that means they’re bad”
Do you see all violence as divorced from other violence?
The Nazis were a colonial power, Jesus Christ, Mary, and Joseph, did you learn nothing about fascism in school?
By the holocaust Germany lost all their colonies, after WW1, so again, I don’t how this is related here. Jews were living within Germany for centuries. And the point was it doesn’t matter in relation to other attrocities.
Russia was also a colonial power, and one of the last which is still one, ask a Yakut guy or someone from the northern Caucasus. So it should be also added there?
You do understand the whole fascism thing relied on getting new colonies, right? They even did the whole manifest destiny thing.
The point is that they’re in the same bucket as other colonial atrocities
Weren’t you the one complaining about whataboutism? Also yes, we can view the Russian empire and the Russian federation as imperialist projects.
this is the most appropriate “both sides” argument i’ve ever seen.
“Both sides” is when you equivocate two things which are not equal, you’re looking for “whataboutism” which is not an actual fallacy, claiming “you’re doing whataboutism” was a PR tactic first used by British colonizers when Irish people brought up British violence in response to anti-IRA propaganda.
I would submit that sometimes “whataboutism” can be related to the issue of topicality in a debate, though. If not addressed properly topicality issues will inevitably derail a discussion as is their nature.
it get that they’re both bad faith ways to shut down discourse and i can see how whataboutism fits; but i was referring to the false equivalency placed between the nato’s atrocities and that of the soviet union’s in the comment
when it’s “both sides” is brought up to shutdown arguments that the democrats have done some of the same things that the republicans did; they’re likewise implying that the democrats have fewer of such incidents than the republicans and therefore the argument is invalid.
this was my half snarky way of saying that this comment is a “both sides” example can be applied in the opposite direction where it neuters the effect that “both sides” has with liberals.
Sorry, I often fail at snark perception
i think it’s better that you say something if it’s not clear for the people who lurk through all the interactions.
Im not the person who replied to you but I picked up on what you meant
fwiw, I suspect Hexbear users expect snark more. It’s basically the default mode in a bunch of comms.
i keep forgetting to use <snark> </snark> tags.
“Yes, the USSR performed atrocities, but the fact that the west has as well excuses that.”
It’s not like those are the only two instances of human rights violations by the USSR, and they’re infamous for lying about numbers.
Misery is not s competition. You don’t have to pick sides. There can be more than one violent authoritarian regime in the world, they can all be bad, and you can oppose all of them. There’s really no reason to defend any imperial powers.
I don’t think that’s what Kieselguhr was trying to say.
As I see it, they are simply pointing out that, when ever the USSR does something bad the west are quick to let you know all about it and how EVIL the USSR is, but when the west does something bad or worst, they don’t seem so eager to let you know about it. It’s not that the west did something bad, it’s that they usually don’t tell you anything about it, but at happy to show the atrocities the others have committed.
But I’m not them so I guess we could ask them to clarify.
I actually support the side which is magnitudes less violent. And there is a difference between killing fascists like the Soviets did and killing anti-colonial freedom fighters but mostly civilians like the colonial powers did.
Deeply unserious and reactionary reply. Accomplished with signature feigned stupidity to fully sidestep the point being made.