d e v o n

Jar Jar Binks Fan Club
RMH
TMBGareOK. The Official They Might Be Giants tumblr
One Nice Bug Per Day

pixel skylines

#extradirty
Not today Justin
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
Cookie Run:Kingdom Official!
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
Cosimo Galluzzi
No title available
tumblr dot com
h

Kiana Khansmith

No title available
NASA
The Stonewall Inn

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Germany

seen from United States

seen from Brazil
seen from United States

seen from China

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from Singapore

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from South Africa

seen from Türkiye
@commiearabgirll
it really is amazing to me that even the so called feminists and anti racists and such on this site go absolutely ballistic when you tell them that living in the imperial core means you benefit from imperialism, and that you are privileged in that factor
URGENT!! $5,000 NEEDED THIS MONTH TO SAVE A BABY'S LIFE!!
Chuffed link
Raneen, @a00h2, is my friend. She is trapped in Gaza, Palestine, with her family. She lost everything in the bombings and is now in poverty and homelesness. Her 1-year-old baby has cancer; she needs to pay $5,000 more this month for him to access life-saving treatment.
My friend doesn't have that money. She can't help him alone. Please, I beg you, donate, whatever you can. $40, $20, $10, $5, whatever you can, it will all be useful. Thank you so much.
Her account is vetted by @90-ghost here, by @gazavetters (#576) , and by @bilal-salah0. This Chuffed fundraiser goes directly to her; for transparency, you can dm @a00h2 if you want to confirm it.
PLEASE, HELP SAVE THE LIFE OF MY FRIEND'S BABY!!
$5,200/$10,200
ONLY $5,000 NEEDED!!
Literally cartoonishly evil.
The main reason it took me a while to come around to transfeminism was that statistic about transmasculine people being much more likely to be victims of sexual assault than transfeminine people, a claim that is apparently backed by multiple independent surveys.
To me, this claim always seemed somewhat surprising and at-odds with everything else I knew about transphobia, but that only suggested that there must be something about transmasculinity that I didn't understand, some specific form of oppression going on that I was unaware of. So I spent a long time listening to people we'd today call "transa***ophobia theorists" to try and get a better understanding of this oppression.
Eventually the irl evidence of my eyes and ears became too strong and I had to look for an explanation beyond "we're all equally oppressed", and I found that explanation in transfeminism, but I still wonder about that specific statistic. What is going on with it?
The study I see cited the most is this one by Abern etc al. It's not really a journal article, it's actually a letter (specifically a Concise Research Report), which is a much shorter publication, albeit still peer-reviewed.
The letter in question is entirely about a single survey with 996 participants with the sole aim of determining what proportion of transmasculine and transfeminine people had experienced sexual assault in their lifetimes.
The exact results are a little tricky to ascertain because, although it's a short letter, they are stated twice and with different percentages each time (seemingly due to confusion over whether to count people who skipped the question altogether), which does not reflect particularly well on the quality of the peer review, I guess. But I think the correct interpretation is that 50% of transmasc respondents had ever been victims of sexual assault, vs 37% of transfems. That is the statistic that stuck in my mind for so long.
Something that's a little odd about this survey is that only 21% of respondents were transfem vs 79% transmasc. That is an unusually stark difference. Does that discrepancy reflect a bias in how the respondents were selected?
The authors themselves admit that the overwhelming whiteness of the respondents reflects some bias in the selection. In fact, the majority of respondents also have private health insurance but also very low income and have graduated school but not college, which suggests to me that a very large portion of survey respondents were current college students, which would also go some way to explaining the lack of transfem respondents (since transfems transition older on average).
It's hard to work out exactly how respondents were recruited. For instance, we are told "social media" was used, but not which forms and in which way. The survey was actually done in 2017-2018, a time when most transfems of my acquaintance predominantly used Twitter and sometimes Reddit (that's just anecdotal ofc). If the study was only shared on Tumblr, for instance, could that explain it? We have no way of knowing.
We also don't know what question specifically was asked. Was it "Have you ever been the victim of a sexual assault?" or was it something that gave examples of the kinds of things that might constitute assault? Could the question have been interpreted as implying (without meaning to) forms of assault where the victim is presumed to have specific anatomy, such that people without that anatomy might answer "No" irrespective of what they had experienced? We don't know the question, so we can't know.
Furthermore, if the question merely asked about sexual assault without defining it, might there be an issue with certain demographics being more or less likely to characterise sexual assaults they had experienced as sexual assaults? I know from my own experience that I have been sexually assaulted many times but it took me a long time to understand that that was the correct term for what I had been through. I think many people have a mental image of what a sexual assault looks like, and if their experience doesn't match that image they may not characterise it as assault, even though it is.
All these things were questions that a good survey designer would hopefully think about before doing the survey, but it seems no one did in this case. But ultimately, it doesn't actually matter, because even if this survey is really flawed, it cites an earlier survey that was much more thorough, so we may as well look at that one instead.
That is the 2015 US Transgender Survey, which had 28,000 respondents, a really good sample size. And we're off to a great start because there's a 43/57 transfem/transmasc split this time, which is much better.
I'll just give a quick run-down of the main points as they relate to trans women's experiences in comparison to trans men (it's much harder to generically compare transfem to transmasc here, because the non-binary category is generally not separated into transition direction, so this is the only realistic way of doing the comparison).
Compared to trans men, trans women...
...start transition about 10 years later on average.
...are more than twice as likely to say other people can tell they are trans most of the time.
...who came out to a partner were twice as likely to be broken-up with over it.
...who have kids were more than 4 times as likely for their kids to stop speaking to them because of their transition.
...are more likely to experience family rejection.
...were 3 times as likely to have temporarily "de-transitioned", mainly due to family pressure or harassment.
...who were perceived as trans at school were twice as likely to be physically attacked.
...who were perceived as trans at school were more than twice as likely to have been sexually assaulted.
...who were perceived as trans at school were more likely to have left school due to harassment.
...who were perceived as trans at school were more than twice as likely to have been expelled.
...were more likely to have left college or vocational school because of harassment.
...were more likely to have lost a job due to gender identity or expression.
...were more likely to have been assaulted at work in the past year due to being trans.
...were more than twice as likely to have done sex work.
...who had an interaction with cops who believed them to be sex workers were more likely to be arrested.
...who had interactions with cops were more likely to be misgendered.
...were more likely to have been made homeless in the past year due to being trans.
...were more likely to have been denied housing in the past year due to being trans.
...were more likely to have been attacked by or forced to engage in sexual activity with cops.
...were more likely to be verbally harassed by strangers.
...were more likely to have been physically attacked by strangers in public.
...were more likely to have had bad experiences on public transport in the past year.
...were more likely to have had a bad experience at a domestic violence shelter in the past year.
...were more likely to have had bad experience with a legal professional.
...were more likely to have been sexually assaulted in a public bathroom.
That is all exactly what I would expect, based on the experiences of the trans people I know. It paints a picture of a world where trans women experience a whole lot more oppression, much of it violent, including sexual assault, at school, by police officers, in public bathrooms, the list goes on.
So what is going on when this survey also states that 51% of trans men have been sexually assaulted, vs 37% of trans women? (Yes, that's basically identical to the other survey) How can that possibly make sense in the context of basically everything else in the survey?
We can't blame the survey itself this time, because we know exactly what question they were asked, and it did detail what kinds of things are considered sexual assault. So, then, what's going on?
This survey essentially states that trans women are more likely to experience sexual assault, but are also less likely to have experienced sexual assault. So that must mean that we have to look at pre-transition experiences for the explanation.
Is it true that closeted trans women are less likely to experience sexual assault than closeted trans men? Maybe. It would've been nice if this survey had established the answer to that question for us. But if so, it would explain at least some of this statistic.
It would imply that a trans woman's risk of experiencing sexual assault jumps up from moderate to very high at the moment she starts her transition. Anecdotally, there is definitely a substantial increase in oppression when you start openly asserting your womanhood, although I and virtually every transfem I know was on the receiving end of sexual violence long before that, there is no doubt that it gets markedly worse.
If this is the explanation, it does rather raise the question of why surveys ask for "lifetime sexual assault" rather than "sexual assault in the past year", for example. I would like to be able to put this down to survey-designer bias, and indeed neither of the co-leads on this survey were transfems, so transmisogynistic bias would hardly be surprising. There were also some parts of the writing that stood out oddly to me:
7% of the "AMAB" respondents were categorised not as trans women or non-binary but as "crossdresser". There is no transmasc equivalent of this for obvious reasons, but this asymmetry is not mentioned by the authors at any point (even though that asymmetry is basically the canonical example of transmisogyny).
There is no acknowledgement of the "non-binary woman" identity that so many transfems have - such people are just classified as "trans woman", which is why the non-binary category is 80% transmasc. This is one classic way in which transfems are denied access to non-binariness.
Quite a lot of the statistics were not broken down by gender, even though it would've been interesting to see, and I suspect would've demonstrated a strong gender gap: things like alcohol and tobacco use, salary, unemployment, whether they had supportive classmates at school.
At one point, the authors make a point of mentioning that, even though trans women make up the majority of trans sex workers, transmasc non-binary sex workers should not be forgotten - that's all well and good, but the chart they use to show this demonstrates that transfem non-binary people are actually more likely to be sex workers than transmascs, and they aren't mentioned at all.
In short, I felt like there was a thread transmisogyny throughout the study. But, even if the co-leads weren't, two of the other authors are trans women, so I'm not sure that argument holds up. Maybe it does, idk. In any case, I am not convinced of it, even if I have an uneasy feeling.
But ultimately the issue is this: the sexual assault question is framed in such a way that it ends up weighting pre-transition experiences very heavily compared to post-transition. This is exactly the trick that transmisogynists like to pull so often, to give the impression of a trans woman as someone unworthy of sympathy due to an alleged earlier life of great privilege, even if she is suffering a lot right now.
The only way I can make sense of this statistic in the context of everything else, is that a closeted transfem is less likely to be sexually assaulted than a closeted transmasc, but after transition it switches and the transfem is much more likely to be sexually assaulted. Does that reflect a particular form of oppression faced by transmascs? It seems an odd way to frame the situation, to say the least.
But also, I think there may be something else going on with the relatively low sexual assault rate for closeted transfems. I have experienced forms of assault as a woman that I instantly recognise as assault, but I remember experiencing exactly the same things when I considered myself to be a man and back then I didn't consider it to be assault.
When you think of yourself as a man, and another man gropes you (for example), it can be really difficult to conceptualise that as "sexual assault", even though it is. And even looking back now, I still find it hard to refer to some of those experiences as sexual assault.
There was a man who sexually assaulted me 20 years ago and I said nothing, and then he did the same things to a cis woman who made a complaint and he rightly got punished for it. If someone had surveyed me after that, I still would've said I had never experienced sexual assault. As a closeted transfem, I was in a position where there clearly was a power dynamic but it was one I couldn't understand, and without understanding it I couldn't put the words "sexual assault" to the actions. Part of being a closeted transfem is being unable to conceptualise your gendered oppression as oppression, because on some level you regard yourself as a gendered oppressor and that can be reflected in the language you use to describe your oppression even long after the fact.
So, perhaps it's true that closeted transfems experience less sexual assault. But equally perhaps it's not, and they just find it harder to refer to it that way. I don't know. But I do know that it's absurd to take a survey that shows over and over again that transfems are right at the bottom of the gender hierarchy, and cherry pick the one statistic that appears to show the opposite.
i don't want to minimize this post, and i apologize if that is what i end up doing. an extraordinary amount of work went into this and there is so much valuable information presented very concisely. however, i do not understand what is, in my view, at the heart of this: the question of who is most oppressed. my answer to this in every realm is "who cares?" yet, so many people invested in these communities seem to care deeply.
what is to be gained by answering it? will any trans people be less likely to be sexually assaulted once the verdict is delivered?
it is never a bad thing to read academic literature or research and critically examine it. ever. but i think anyone who is emotionally invested in finding out which of any two marginalized groups is most marginalized needs to honestly ask themselves what they hope to achieve by figuring that out and whether that goal is in line with their values.
The point is not to ascertain "who is more oppressed". Rather, I have a mental model of how gender works: what kinds of behaviours are punished and rewarded for which groups of people, who can get away with doing X thing to Y person and who can't get away with it, which kinds of people will wider society defend and which will they turn away from, etc etc. The widely-cited statistic "transmascs are more likely to be sexually assaulted than transfems" makes no sense if my mental model is correct.
Even if you think people quoting that statistic are wasting their time arguing over an irrelevancy, it is still a problem for me that it contradicts my mental model. Which means I either need to rethink my mental model or demonstrate that the statistic is misleading. I can't just let that contradiction stand, my brain will not let me believe in something while there is compelling evidence contradicting it. So I did a deep-ish dive into that statistic to see what was going on and thought I'd share what I found, that's all.
As to your wider point about the purpose of ascertaining "who is the most oppressed", I think this is an uncharitable framing of the topic. It's about understanding hierarchies of oppression and delving into the minutiae of how oppression operates: saying X person faces Y oppression and Z person doesn't isnt about working out "who is most oppressed", but just getting a better understanding of what is actually going on with oppression. You ask whether this will reduce oppression in the future: yes, of course it will. Feminist theory informs social norms decades down the line.
For example, "sexual harassment" is a term that refers to something that seems so obvious to us now, but it was only coined in the 70s by American feminists, to refer to kind of misogynistic marginalisation of women by men that we didn't really have the language to talk about beforehand. Imagine being one of those American feminists in the 70s trying to explain to someone that your career has been harmed by you having to quit your job to preserve your mental health because men kept making you uncomfortable by making sexual comments, and that this is just one of many ways that the systematic oppression of women by men operates. They would just tell you to grow a thicker skin. 50 years later, "sexual harassment" is a very well known term, and even men are well aware of what it means, and also that they may face serious HR consequences if they do it. American workplaces today are obviously still rife with systemic misogyny, but compared to how they were in the 70s it's a huge quality of life improvement for women.
Our understanding of how transmisogyny operates is comparatively in its infancy: the word itself is not even 20 years old. Try telling someone in 2007 that jokes about "men in dresses" being "creepy" are part of the systematic oppression of transfems by non-transfems, they would just tell you to grow a thicker skin etc etc. Maybe in 30 years we'll be at a point where everyone is well aware of transmisogyny as a social force and what kinds of things are examples of it, and that HR will take complaints about it seriously so they'd better watch their step. It takes a long time for feminist theorising to trickle down that far, but it will happen eventually.
too many people remain ignorant of the level of terrorism there was in Xinjiang, and how the Chinese state dealt with it beyond the vocational training centers:
Starting around 2007, however, it became increasingly dangerous to visit Xinjiang. The region was rocked by a spate of horrific terrorist attacks, resulting in over 1,000 deaths and countless injuries.
For example, on July 5, 2009, there was a riot in the capital city of Urumqi; 197 people were hacked, beaten or burned to death and 1,721 were injured. On May 22, 2014, two car bombings in the same city killed 43 people and wounded 94. There were dozens of other attacks.
The extreme violence was not just confined to Xinjiang. In 2013, five people died and 38 were injured in a suicide attack by three Uygurs in Beijing. In 2014, a killing spree by eight knife-wielding Uygurs left 31 people dead and 141 wounded at a Kunming railway station.
A 2016 study commissioned by the US government noted that, from 2012 to 2014, domestic attacks in China "apparently became more frequent, more geographically dispersed, and more indiscriminately targeted". The perpetrators, in many cases, were radicalised members of the Uygur ethnic group.
The organisation that often claimed responsibility for the attacks, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) [later known as the Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP)], was described in a Council on Foreign Relations backgrounder as "a Muslim separatist group founded by militant Uygurs".
Xinjiang: what the West doesn't tell you about China's war on terror
it's not the Chinese state that tried to erase Uyghur culture, that was an armed Salafist group, which received training and funding from Al-Qaeda, and wanted to impose a new way of life on the whole province, through terroristic violence and intimidation
China responded to the problem of radicalisation by trying to address its underlying socio-economic causes, as well as targeting the radicalisation networks themselves. the vocational training centers were one small part of trying to improve the economic and social well-being of people in Xinjiang. other efforts included:
• implementing the...transfer [of] employment for 100,000 laborers in southern Xinjiang in three years (2018-2020) and having realized the transfer employment of 75,000 people from families suffering extreme poverty;
• adding a total of 1.4008 million new urban jobs and transferring 8.305 million surplus rural laborers for employment in Xinjiang from 2016 to 2018 through developing labor-intensive industries...and creating jobs through business startups;
• popularizing nine-year compulsory education and providing free three-year preschool education in urban and rural areas in southern Xinjiang;
• offering free universal health check-up; ensuring full coverage of serious illness insurance, and ensuring full coverage of centralized treatment of 15 serious illnesses and contracted services for chronic illnesses for the poverty-stricken rural population;
• improving the social security system, and ensuring that the standard of subsistence allowance for impoverished urban and rural residents is raised continuously.
[white paper] The Fight Against Terrorism and Extremism and Human Rights Protection in Xinjiang, Section V
And their approach worked:
No violent or terrorist activities have occurred in Xinjiang for more than two years; the number of criminal cases and public security cases has fallen significantly; the infiltration of extremism has been curbed, and peace and harmony has returned to society. In 2018, tourism in Xinjiang grew rapidly: Tourists from inside and outside China numbered over 150 million, a year-on-year increase of 40 percent; foreign tourists totaled 2.4032 million
[white paper] The Fight Against Terrorism and Extremism and Human Rights Protection in Xinjiang, Section VI (2021)
So how did China's counter terrorism programs get turned into a supposed genocide by the West?
On November 5, 2020, two days after the US presidential election, the Trump administration delisted ETIM as a terrorist group.
(...)At the stroke of a pen, ETIM-sponsored terrorism was no longer an issue to the US, and out went the international legitimacy of China's counter terrorism campaign.
That paved the way for Pompeo to declare genocide, on the day he was packing up to leave office...If there were no terrorists to fight, China's policies could then, by default, be labelled as ethnic repression.
By striking out the premise of counter terrorism, Western politicians could then frame China's anti-terror measures simply as religious and ethnic persecution.
Xinjiang: what the West doesn't tell you about China's war on terror
if you want to learn more, the two sources linked here should give you a much clearer picture of the problem Xinjiang and China more broadly was facing from the separatist terrorism, and how they went about tackling it
For more on how and why the US conducted this propaganda war, check out this post from my lovely partner @jingerpi
sorry if this is a rude question, but if Ukraine is committing a genocide in Donbas how come we don’t see casualty figures like we do in Gaza
the short answer is: not for a lack of trying!
despite donbass having a significantly larger population then gaza the population density is much lower and donbass has way more land to be spread out in, one of the reasons the israel siege on gaza has come with this massive death toll is of course one because they are targeting civilians but also because the gaza strip has a population of millions despite being fucking tiny. gaza is 45 square kilometres compared to donbass 53,200 square kilometres.
furthermore during several stages in the current genocide in gaza all ways of leaving have been closed, this is not the case for donbass, russia has accepted millions of refugees from donbass over the course of the genocide and has provided pretty consistent humanitarian aid to those who remained despite ukraine’s best efforts.
shout out to the time they tried to stop humanitarian aid convoys entering donbass carrying covid 19 vaccines in the middle of the pandemic.
also since 2022 donbass has mostly been under the control of the russian army and both donbass republic has officially been recognised as part of the russian federation. the full force of the russian military is something gaza does not have. also donbass has bomb shelters
and finally we don’t actually know the full extent of the dead. there are still some places in donbass not yet liberated, there are still mass graves to be unearthed and thousands of missing to be found alive or dead. it will be years before the full breadth of this is known.
Hey I’m Charlotte I’m a disabled 20 yo trans woman trying to make ends meet. I make functionally 5 dollars an hour doing door dash and work a 50 hour week. Anything you can donate would go a long way. PayPal links below.
Go to paypal.me/CharlotteTaylor9595 and type in the amount. Since it’s PayPal, it's easy and secure. Don’t have a PayPal account? No worries
Hey I’m Charlotte I’m a disabled 20 yo trans woman trying to make ends meet. I make functionally 5 dollars an hour doing door dash and work a 50 hour week. Anything you can donate would go a long way. PayPal links below.
Go to paypal.me/CharlotteTaylor9595 and type in the amount. Since it’s PayPal, it's easy and secure. Don’t have a PayPal account? No worries
Hey I’m Charlotte I’m a disabled 20 yo trans woman trying to make ends meet. I make functionally 5 dollars an hour doing door dash and work a 50 hour week. Anything you can donate would go a long way. PayPal links below.
Go to paypal.me/CharlotteTaylor9595 and type in the amount. Since it’s PayPal, it's easy and secure. Don’t have a PayPal account? No worries
VERY URGENT!! $4,500 NEEDED THIS MONTH TO SAVE A BABY'S LIFE!!
Chuffed link
Raneen, @a00h2, is my friend. She is trapped in Gaza, Palestine, with her family. She lost everything in the bombings and is now in poverty and homelesness. Her 1-year-old baby has cancer; she needs to pay $4,500 more this month for him to access life-saving treatment.
My friend doesn't have that money. She can't help him alone. Please, I beg you, donate, whatever you can. $40, $20, $10, $5, whatever you can, it will all be useful. Thank you so much.
Her account is vetted by @90-ghost here, by @gazavetters (#576) , and by @bilal-salah0. This Chuffed fundraiser goes directly to her; for transparency, you can dm @a00h2 if you want to confirm it.
PLEASE, HELP SAVE THE LIFE OF MY FRIEND'S BABY!!
$5,200/$9,700
ONLY $4,500 NEEDED!!
it really is surreal to observe what's going on in the misogynist transmasc crowd as an asian american lol. like hey i've seen this one before
it's almost like this specific type of misogynist backlash against feminists within marginalized groups happens again and again and again
Im gonna be so real can yall actually talk about ways we can support trans women in the UK instead of giving all the attention to fucking JKR. I already know that Harry Poter sucks, I wanna know how to actually HELP people. Something something you have to love the oppressed more than you hate the oppressor
trans actual uk - trans led and run advocacy, education and empowerment organisation
fiveforfive - collective fund for trans women and girls and transfem causes
gendered intelligence - trans led advocacy org
mermaids - supports trans youth
akt - lgbtq youth homelessness charity
loving me - domestic abuse service for trans people in england
not a phase - for trans adults
"De-Stalinisation" and the complete denunciation of Stalin under Khrushchev was genuinely such a stupid move. Like even putting aside your personal feelings about the matter or whether the crimes of Stalin's era can really be attributed to him or not, it was a massive political mistake
At the time of Stalin's death, yes there were many who hated him or had trauma associated with his leadership, but he was also widely understood as a national hero throughout the Soviet Union. That's why there were mass protests against de-Stalinisation, such as in Georgia where the protests caused massive unrest and anti-Soviet sentiment
In attributing all crimes to Stalin as an individual, in denouncing Stalin in his entirety, Khrushchev and his government were essentially forcing the Soviet people to abandon pride in all that they had achieved throughout Stalin's leadership. Writings about the experiences of the Soviet people in the 20s and 30s, with the exception of the Great Purge years, have demonstrated such an astronomical degree of hope and passion for socialist development
They defeated the Nazis under Stalin's leadership. They modernised their country, turning it from a feudal empire to a world superpower with powerful industry and welfare services hitherto inconceivable
To then suddenly denounce that entire period of leadership is to destabilise the people's connection to those achievements and create widespread disillusionment in communism. It's also just reductive, feeding great man theory which is anti-Marxist anyway
Soviet leadership should have done what China did, and assessed Stalin's leadership more fairly. They should have admitted to the mistakes and abuses of power yes, but not abandon Stalin's legacy completely, and they should have analysed it within context in order to understand how better to improve
You can make people aware of his mistakes without destroying their faith in communism and the achievements they made
Losurdo’s book Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend does a very good job at this. It demonstrates that much of our critiques of Stalin come from the Secret Speech which was mostly half truths and lies. However, Losurdo is also critical of Stalin - he doesn’t do blanket apologia.
Further, the work is critical of attributing these critiques to Stalin alone. That is Great Man theory, not materialism.
Anyways, great post, just wanted to give a book recommendation :)
Download Losurdo’s Stalin for free from Iskra Book! PDF or EPUB format available. No login required.
I do also like what Carlos Martinez had to say about this topic in his book The End Of The Beginning: Lessons Of The Soviet Collapse. Sorry if what he says is redundant but I like the quotes he adds.
[Khrushchev’s] methods, however, were disastrous. It should have been possible to make political changes without launching a severe frontal attack on Stalin and all that he represented. Stalin was the most prominent Soviet leader from 1924 until his death in 1953. In other words, Stalin led the USSR for twenty-nine of the thirty-six years of the USSR’s existence. To criticize him so harshly, to tear down a personality cult so suddenly, meant to cast doubt on the entire Soviet experience to that point it meant to delegitimize the extraordinary achievements of the CPSU and the Soviet people during the Stalin era. Even Vladislav Zubok – an anti-Stalinist by any measure – observes that ‘the destruction of Stalin’s cult wounded the Soviet ideological consensus’.
The situation demanded a more balanced, nuanced assessment of the Stalin period (although we should note in passing that, even now, such a thing is rare). The post-Mao leadership in China had criticisms of Mao that were not entirely dissimilar to the Khrushchev leadership’s criticisms of Stalin. Some of the changes they introduced had parallels with those envisaged by Khrushchev. And yet it did not occur to the Chinese leadership to try to destroy Mao’s legacy. Deng Xiaoping made an insightful comment on this subject in an interview given to the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci in 1980,
We will make an objective assessment of Chairman Mao’s contributions and his mistakes. We will reaffirm that his contributions are primary and his mistakes secondary. We will adopt a realistic approach towards the mistakes he made late in life. We will continue to adhere to Mao Zedong Thought, which represents the correct part of Chairman Mao’s life. Not only did Mao Zedong Thought lead us to victory in the revolution in the past it is – and will continue to be – a treasured possession of the Chinese Communist Party and of our country. That is why we will forever keep Chairman Mao’s portrait on Tiananmen Gate as a symbol of our country, and we will always remember him as a founder of our Party and state. . . . We will not do to Chairman Mao what Khrushchev did to Stalin.
Nearly four decades later, Mao’s portrait still occupies pride of place on Tiananmen Gate.
Khrushchev’s speech created widespread confusion and doubt anger, in some places. A report from 2015 on a recently rebuilt statue of Stalin in the village of Eski Ikan, Kazakhstan, contains a thought-provoking quote from a Second World War veteran who, along with his fellow villagers, had resisted attempts by the local authorities to dismantle Stalin’s statue in the late 1950s in the wake of Khrushchev’s speech,
We fought the Nazis with the battle cry ‘For the Homeland! For Stalin!’, and they wanted to pull down the statue. Over our dead bodies, we said. We stood firm, and we won.
🚨 New Ukrainian army chief goes on genocidal rant against Russians and Donbass residents in first post-appointment interview.
Hours into his tenure, Ukraine’s new Commander-in-Chief, Mykhailo Drapaty, has wasted no time in revealing his true colors, and they’re steeped in nationalist chauvinism, openly noting that Russians as a nation "have no right to exist."
💬 "Criminals, migrants, and unconscious people,” he said, describing his attitude to Donbass residents. "They want handouts, they’re envious and don’t want to work at all. I used to think this was a myth, but no, it’s the truth."
Never mind that Donbass once powered Ukraine’s economy, churning out half of its GDP. For Drapaty, a Sumy native with apparently no memory of industrial history, the region is little more than a problem to be managed. So he may have done more to explain the Donbass drift toward Russia than anyone else in Ukraine ever could, showing why the region turned away in reality.
(x)
What the West won’t tell you about Zelensky’s new top general.