#expansionism

[psycohousecat]

Europe is finally coming aboard on resisting Americas fascist expansionist policies .. ♥️

[tilbageidanmark]

The long arc of genocide

[wombatsrus]

"Firepower alone doesn’t mean victory—ask Russia, stuck in Ukraine despite superior weapons and a huge population difference.

Canada also has friends. Lots of them. Friends with values and resolve. Including millions in the USA who would join our resistance to Trump's regime and attempted hostile takeover.

Values are why people choose to fight in the first place. Ukraine didn't fall because they refused to be ruled. Canada will always refuse to be ruled by new-age Nazis."

Via Meanwhile in Canada

[ljf613]

Colonization & Imperialism in ATLA

One of the things I’ve noticed in fandom complaints about the ATLA comics-- namely, “The Promise”-- and subsequently, LOK’s worldbuilding, is the way the narrative handles colonization. 

I see a lot about how what the Earth Kingdom chose to do with the former colonies is “none of Zuko’s (or Aang’s) business.” (I also see people talking about how Katara would never support colonialism, in any shape or form, no matter the circumstances.) 

And I just.... don’t vibe with those ideas? At all? 

Like, I definitely have problems with the comics-- especially “The Promise,” where all the drama centers around Miscommunications of Epic Proportions and could have been resolved in Part One if all the characters just sat down and listened to each other (not to mention that Aang would never have agreed to make that promise, nor would Zuko have asked it of him (Sokka would be a more obvious choice, but that’s a different discussion))-- but I never had any issues with their worldbuilding. 

I love the idea of Yu Dao, and the fact that the narrative acknowledges that a new kind of world has new kinds of problems. It makes sense to me that we can’t always just “give back the land we took.” And I found the idea of the end solution being  “give the people who live there their own country” really cool and empowering. 

So I want to talk about why I feel this way. About what kind of real-world parallels can be made here. About some little-known bits of world-history that compare. 

(Please note that for this meta I am only going to be discussing the relationship between Fire Nation and the Earth Kingdom. As far as I am aware-- and I could be wrong-- there is no real-world genocide quite comparible to what Sozin did to the Air Nomads, and most of the people alive in ATLA were not actually around for or involved in that. And the relationship the Fire Nation has with the Water Tribes-- and that the North and South have with each other-- is worth a whole separate analysis, and doesn’t deserve to just be shoved into this one.)

(Disclaimer: While this is in response to some of the interpretations I’ve seen on this site, it is not meant to discount or invalidate those fans’ views-- I’m just trying to show my take on it. I am a firm believer in the power of active discourse, and the value of looking at the same scenes through different lenses, rather than just getting one opinion and accepting it as Absolute Truth.) 

The main thing I notice in general ATLA discourse-- and not just on this topic, but in any sort of meta about the Fire Nation, colonization, and global impact-- is that the fandom mostly compares the war and its after-affects to real-world Imperialism, the Age of Imperialism, New Imperialism, and Colonization. 

And I understand why that is. In the grand scheme of world history, that era is still fairly recent, and we are still dealing with the afteraffects from it. It has shaped the Western World’s worldview on every level. (Not to mention that the Euro-centric way we’re taught history means that this piece of world history is the one we’re most exposed to, and so have the most understanding of and room to analyze/criticize.) 

However, there are a few issues with sticking only to this perspective. 

First off, the Age of Imperialism was a direct response to the Age of Exploration. This was the period of time when white Europeans sailed around the world acting as though they were discovering new places and pretending that there weren’t already existing civilizations there. 

[ID: Two dots meme, edited so that Guy A says “i’ve discovered a NEW WORLD,” Guy B replies “you didn’t discover ****,” and Guy A insists “i’ve discovered it” / End ID.] 

Now, I’ve mentioned this in passing, but the world of ATLA doesn’t appear to have had an Age of Exploration. There’s no vast “undiscovered” land masses, the four nations have always known about each other, and they all have a shared language. 

The whole foundation for the Age of Imperialism was “oh, look, there are all these ‘unexplored’ lands with resources ripe for the picking (who cares about the indigenous people, they’re just simplistic savages who don’t know what’s best for them), let’s see which European country can grab the most land first.” 

This was a race. This was sudden. This was Europeans coming in and taking over while viewing the natives as bothersome pests. This was about multiple major world powers competing over resources. 

This was not 100 years of active warfare between a single conquering country and the very people they were trying to conquer. 

The parallels don’t hold up. 

Secondly, by focussing only on this one kind of historical narrative, we ignore any others. 

I will admit that I have used the word “imperialism” in reference to the Fire Nation a time or two. However, upon further reflection, I realize I didn’t really mean imperialism, which is actually a fairly modern concept. What I feel the Fire Nation is really an example of is centralism and expansionism-- two ideaologies that have been a way of life for conquering empires throughout history. 

(I am in no way qualified to explain the differences between these concepts-- I recommend doing your own research if you’re curious.) 

The Persian Empire. The Greek Empire. The Roman Empire. The Byzantine Empire. The Mongolian Empire. The Russian Empire. The First French Empire. 

You could take any of these (or numerous others) and make an interesting analysis between the similarities and differences between their behaviors and that of the Fire Nation. And maybe I’ll do that someday. 

However, I started this to talk about Yu Dao and all of the other so-called colonies (I really feel like territories would be a better word, but, again, that’s a whole ’nother discussion), and I’d like to focus on that. 

FYI, here’s a basic history refresher: If two countries are at war, and then they decide to end the war, neither country is required to return captured territories. They can make a treaty and agree to do so, but there is no obligation to. The Fire Nation didn’t just march in and say, “this is our land now”-- they fought for it. They captured that land. Just because the war is over doesn’t mean they need to just give it back. 

Like it or not, that is the way the world operated for thousands of years, and so that is the interpretation I’m working with here. 

In any case, “The Promise” actually presents this as a three-way conversation. There’s Zuko (and, by default, the Fire Nation), Kuei (and, by default, Ba Sing Se and the Earth Kingdom), and the people of Yu Dao themselves. 

(My understanding of the Earth Kingdom’s style of government is that it’s made up of a large collection of different ethno-cultural regions who all answer to Ba Sing Se.) 

I’ll let Sokka explain it: 

[ID: Comic panel from Part Three of “The Promise.” Sokka and Katara are talking, both in obvious states of agitation, while Suki and Toph are looking at something in the background. Sokka is saying, “Let me see if I got this. The protestors and the Earth Kingdom Army want the colonials to go, the Fire Nation Army wants the colonials to stay, and the Yu Dao Resistance just want their city to be left alone?” Katara responds, “Yes!” / End ID.] 

The people of Yu Dao don’t care about the war. They don’t even really care who’s in charge. They just want to be left alone. 

This speaks to me on a very personal level, so I’m going to make another real-world comparison here: 

My ancestors first came to America to escape from the poverty and opression they were experiencing in a place known as “White Russia”-- that is, Belarus. To be clear, I am not talking about the country “Belarus,” but the region, which includes the modern-day countries of Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia and Moldova, as well as parts of Poland and Russia. 

I looked up White Russia, trying to find out how much information someone who didn’t grow up hearing stories about what it was like (that is, most of the people reading this,) might have. I didn’t find much. Most of what I found talked about political ideologies and such-- things that your average poor peasant, struggling just eke out a living, didn’t have much energy to care about. So let me paint a(n oversimplified) picture for you. 

Imagine you’re a poor shoemaker in a small town on the Russian border. You spend your days hard at work, trying to earn a living to support your wife and nine children. You’ve never left the town you were born in. One day you get the news: Russia and Poland are fighting again. Your two oldest sons (ages 15 and 17) are forcibly drafted off to fight in the Russian army; you never see them again and have no way of knowing if they’re dead or alive (they’re probably dead). Poland wins-- this time. Congratulations, your town is now part of Poland. 

Does suddenly being Polish make a difference to your life? Not in the slightest. Two or three years down the line, you’ll go back to being part of Russia again. This is the third or fourth time you’ve seen your town switch hands, and you can’t say you prefer one government over the other. It doesn’t really matter who’s in charge-- you’re still faced with crippling taxes, forced drafts, and various other forms of oppression. (It doesn’t help that you happen to be part of a persecuted minority.) 

(This is why I have many ancestors who may never have left the town they were born in, and yet records show that they were born in one country, got married in another, and died in a third.) 

This is the kind of worldview through which I am looking at Yu Dao. (Obviously, it’s not an exact parallel, but neither is the standard “colonizers vs oppressed natives” lens.) 

My ancestors eventually got fed up with the treatment they were receiving from their respective governments, and left to build a new life, in a new place. But the citizens of Yu Dao don’t have anywhere to go. The only two real world powers in this story are the Fire Nation and the Earth Kingdom, neither of which has ever before expressed any true interest or concern in the actual people of Yu Dao. 

The Earth Kingdom didn’t really care about the city before the war-- they were just another poor, struggling town, whose citizens were barely able to make ends meet. And while the Fire Nation may have helped the place grow into a bustling town, they also established a hierarchy that did not serve in the citizens’ best interests. 

And so, in “The Promise,” these citizens’ frustrations come to a head. “Enough,” they say, “we don’t want to be used as a pawn in your games anymore.” 

And Zuko and Kuei (and Aang) actually listen. They say “we need to start thinking about these people as people, not as symbols of one side or the other. It’s time to give them a say in their future.” 

And a new country-- a new way of life-- is born. 

(Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it is constantly evolving and changing, trying to do better, be better. And that’s more than you can say about most of the other countries in this world.)

[addressingsophism]

Identity Politics 101: The Differences Between Cooperative Multiculturalism & Cultural Appropriation

When discussing marginalized groups and individuals it's important to recognize identity is often inexplicably tied to difference aspects of the marginalized experience: the positive, where one has been raised in and identifies with a culture or experience, and the negative, where one has had to endure prejudice often faced by marginalized groups and individuals.

It’s not always as simple as “I believe, therefore I am”, and it’s not also always as crystal clear “I mean no harm, therefore I should be allowed can copy without criticism”.

Identity politics can be confusing to individuals lacking in a detailed understand of the different aspects, positive and negative, of identification, and why many have difficulty distinguishing between intricacies of identity culture, cultural appropriation, inherited multiculturalism, imperialistic multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism.

Cultural Appropriation: The usage of cultural items and adoption of traditions and cultural identities that are not one's own, often for the sake of mockery, “exotic” fetishization, novelty hype, escapism, attention seeking, or economic and political exploitation tied to any of the above.

Imperialistic Multiculturalism: Where a number of cultures and peoples have mixed together under aggressive circumstances, often due to entitlement-based cultural expansionist ideologies. For the victims and decedents of aggressive expansionism, this can leave deep scars across the identity landscape (tied to other sociological aspects of life), especially among groups which have been marginalized on their native land, those that have been removed/displaced from their native land, or those whom are still a majority but their history, culture, traditions, values and the validation of their identities and rights have been jeopardized and undermined by aggressive groups. It should also be noted there is a distinction between planned violent imperialist expansionism and complex conditions and sociological issues that arise out asylum seeking and immigration (which is often tied to displacement and marginalization).

Inherited/Cooperative Multiculturalism: Where a number of cultures and peoples have historically mixed together under mostly mutually benign and cooperative circumstances in which intentional conflict and attempts at ideologically-driven aggressive marginalization have been minimal or non-existent.

Cosmopolitanism: A form of modern cooperative multiculturalism in which cultural traditions are adopted, practiced or researched out of respect, sensitivity, mutual benefit, anthropological interest or necessity, often as part of an interest in the adoption of international anthropological humanist cultural ideology. The distinction between heritage and adoption are acknowledged in most cases.

[edithaint-blog]

Vaccines do NOT cause autism

Autism has many potential causes, as do most conditions. Overcrowding in rodents and primates can result in symptoms similar to autism. We humans are just another primate. Perhaps our population density is an aggravating factor, both for autism and other disorders like schizophrenia? Among other aggravating factors, of course. Love, life, loss....all potentially quite aggravating. People, crowded together in big cities...quite aggravating. You know what contributes to overcrowding and increased population density?

Vaccines.

See, not all "anti-vaxxers" believe vaccines cause autism. This is a common stereotype used to shut down open discussion. Yes, many people DO actually believe vaccines cause autism, but you should NOT preemptively shout "VACCINES DON'T CAUSE AUTISM" before actually hearing the person out. The more you keep pushing vaccines, or any other medical treatment, the more your opponents will push back. Normal people have a natural distaste for constant preaching.

I oppose ALL mandatory medical treatment. This includes sterilization, chemotherapy, psychiatric medication, and yes, vaccination. I also oppose all restrictions on drug use and/or medical treatment. In other words, you should have every right to get drunk, off yourself, your unborn baby, whatever, regardless of your age, race, sex, or mental health. Likewise, you should have every right to smoke weed, eat shrooms, pop out 10 mewling infants, and refuse every vaccination for yourself and your children. And your children should have the right to be vaccinated without your consent.

Why, you might ask?

Wouldn't this be absolute chaos?

Death? Disease? Pain? Suffering?

Yes!

But this seems to be a little-known secret: chaos is ALL. Order is institutionalized disorder. Yes, life follows certain patterns, but we don't fully understand these things. Might as well be chaos. We eradicate one disease, only to replace it with another. Death is necessary and inevitable. Suffering is unpleasant, but ultimately irrelevant. Yes, vaccines and other marvels of modern medicine have allowed our population to grow exponentially over the past few centuries, at the cost of mass extinction and ever-rising rates of chronic illness. A hundred deaths by measles means next to nothing when your global population is in the billions.

In simple terms: we humans are overpopulated. So many deny this, claiming we have enough space and resources, but this is hubris. We don't know what the fuck we need. We forcibly sterilize cats and dogs in fear of THEIR overpopulation, yet we outnumber them by several orders of magnitude. We should sterilize our own species before all else, but of course, I oppose such mandatory treatments. Such institutionalized eugenics.

Populations boom and bust. Civilizations rise and fall. Plagues come and go, fuelled not by a lack of vaccines, but an excess of densely-packed hosts to infect. I oppose mandatory vaccination because it violates my freedom and autonomy. Yet to allow one freedom is to restrict another; my freedom to refuse vaccination may result in me infecting an immunocompromised child, which would violate their freedom to avoid infection. Yet this is ultimately irrelevant. A population bottleneck, perhaps a new pandemic, is inevitable. Our medical technology only prolongs the inevitable. If you have a compromised immune system, something will kill you eventually regardless of who is immunized. Something will kill ALL of us.

We are just another animal. Just another species of strange fleshy creature, floating through a vast abyss on a slimy little pebble. Likewise, our parasites and pathogens are living creatures, somewhat representative of our microscopic ancestors. When a certain bacteria becomes overpopulated within the ecosystem of our human bodies, we experience illness and suffering. Just as our planet experiences illness and suffering at our current population levels. Yet we fear the polar bears and bumblebees going extinct. What about malaria? Influenza? Us? We understand too little of our universe to determine what species should be preserved or eradicated. We barely understand our own individual bodies, which is why our authority should stop there. Neither age nor education guarantee wisdom.

I'm fully aware how cruel this sounds. People should be allowed to refuse medical treatment because we'll all die someday? Yes, basically. To allow one freedom is to restrict another. To protect one person is to oppress another. Nature isn't nice, life ain't fair, and our ideals of "peace" and "progress" only provide false hope, temporary gratification, an illusion of security. If your values require censoring other opinions to protect you, if an opinion is so prevalent ad to warrant that censorship, perhaps you should genuinely question all sides of the issue. Don't just shut people down by screaming "X DOESN'T CAUSE Y" and reporting them to the local thought police. Just as people stupidly voted for Trump or Hillary out of genuine fear and desperation, the anarchist assholes like me have valid concerns with our society. Because we're ALL wrong.

There is nothing inherently "wrong" or "unnatural" about death or suffering. Sex, violence, injury, illness, overpopulation, extinction....All normal ecological forces. Government corruption, class division, cultural appropriation, the false dichotomy of capitalism and socialism....normal ecological forces, as expressed by humans. Vaccination is simply a modern practice of an ancient process: exposure to a pathogenic illness through a penetrative injury. The science behind immunization, along with most modern medicine, is fairly solid. And the seemingly "superstitious" aversion to this is totally understandable.

Why pretend otherwise? Why force the illusion of safety and order? Why not live and let live? As a small child fights their sleep, anti-vaxxers fight against a government already on the brink of implosion. While government agents and hapless humanitarians fight against the very concept of disease by campaigning to force vaccination on threat of legal action. Both sides are pitiable. The more we struggle, the faster we sink, tangled in a web of life beyond us all. Vaccines may not cause autism, but restricting my rights will do little to protect your own.

We're all just throwing stones in a glass house.

[dark-psychic-force]

The more I look into the cultural histories of non-European countries, the more I’m convinced that European colonialism was the biggest mistake to ever happen to humanity as a whole.

[psycohousecat]

Europe is finally coming aboard on resisting Americas fascist expansionist policies