You must log in or # to comment.
What is it with all the posts from the Economist? They are right wing capitalist garbage.
I take it folks saw the phrase cancel culture and downvoted?
It’s actually a fascinating article. Odessa has been at the intersection of Ukraine and Russia for ages. Lots of Russian speakers who resisted Russia etc. But as the invasion goes on, people are being attacked for speaking Russian, statues of Odessa’s most famous people torn down etc. And you can kind of see where both sides are coming from.
It’s an issue I imagine almost none of us knew or thought about, if not for the phrase “cancel culture” why on Earth are we downvoting it?
Nah, it’s because the article is bullshit.
The “kind of see where both sides are coming from” is de facto support for russian genocidal imperialism.
We don’t need Pushkin statues, we have our own artists and our own heroes.
Getting rid of russian language and russian “culture” is a legitimate aim when your country has suffered multiple genocides and centuries of colonialism. Russian culture is trash and has no value. It’s like saying Islamic state culture is legitimate. Would you be opposed to getting rid of Nazis imagery too?
This is just the economist’s version of teenage edgelord posts. I would like to invite the author and their family to Donbas (this is where me and my family or from), we’ll see what he thinks about Pushkin after that.
Except the Ukrainians in Odessa who speak Russian and feel they are Ukranian, fuck those people.
Odessa is not Donbas, it’s a unique impressive area with its own history.
Edit: By I can see both sides, I mean I get the Ukranian fury at Russia etc. But I also understand that the people of Odessa have their own version of what being Ukranian is and means.
Ukrainians (in Odessa or anywhere really) are welcome to use russian (or Gujarati) in private. In the public sphere, the official language is Ukrainian.
I am aware that Odessa is not Donbas. What are you even trying to say?
Your waxing poetical about the russian nature of Odessa just like most russians (not only nationalists, you ever hear this from the alleged opposition).
Fundamentally it is not for you or (or the russians) to decide what the official language is in Ukraine, how we name our streets and how we choose to deal with centuries of russian imperialism.
For you this is purely a theoretical discussion. The reality of the matter is that russian language and culture are a tool of russian genocidal imperialism (just look at the state of say the Komi language, if you even know that such a language exists). To fight russian genocidal imperialism, you need to get rid of russian insignia and russian chauvinist, slave-mentality thinking. And yes, this also means recognizing that Ukrainian is the official language of Ukraine and that we have our our great artists and heroes.
I’d strongly suggest actually reading the article.
But I also understand that the people of Odessa have their own version of what being Ukranian is and means.
You could have said the same thing about Southern Confederates in the U.S. in the 1860s. They don’t get to have their own version anymore.
Are you actually comparing Odessa to the Confederates? That’s a real decision you’re making?
Edit: trying to understand this take… Are you perhaps confused and thinking Odessa is part of Russia?
I’m saying that when your country is invaded, worrying about respecting the people who’s culture is the same as the invader’s is a great way to get a bunch of fifth columnists. And I’m not sure why you’re not aware of that. Similarly, despite the many British people of German heritage, in 1939, their “unique British-German culture” was not relevant and was not respected and should not have been.
This was the rationale behind America’s Japanese internment camps, which in my opinion, weren’t great.
I mean there’s a happy medium between not allowing things like allowing them to openly celebrate Russian stuff and putting them in internment camps…
That’s literally calling for genocide? You’re telling a peoples (who are the victims of an invasion) that they cannot have their own culture because it’s similar to an invaders?
No. It literally is not calling for genocide any more than it would be calling for genocide to say that the French should stop teaching kids German in school in Alasace-Lorraine before the Nazis invaded.
I downvoted for The Economist.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economist/
But yeah, “Boo this newspaper for being one of the most credible and unbiased around! I hate it when reality conflicts with my preferred narratives!”
Thanks to that website, I no longer need independent thought or skepticism. So long as a website reports technical facts, I can’t dislike their editorial decisions, range of opinions or their record of fuck-ups like becoming advocates for the invasion or Iraq. I will defer to the “unbiased” label slapped onto them subjectively by a website not necessarily ran by someone who can even read non-English language news from around the world or who uses a benchmark of bias that is partocular to their national, ideological and cultural context, which is likely very different from mine. Thanks!
If you have to reach two decades back and your gotchya is a choice that most mainstream newspapers and politicians backed, well, I think that says more about your pre determined beliefs on the Economist than it does about the paper but to each their own?
(And of course, if you have a better media bias checker, you might suggest it to the mods at c/politics as it’s the one they use.)
I can reach back to literally today with their Gaza coverage. And no, “most” politicians didn’t back it - this is exactly where you’re falling short. I’m not British or American. An overwhelming majority of politicians in my nation and even my continent thought it was a criminal endeavor. Yet to you, that bias is baked into your national politics - “of course they supported it, everyone did!” I’m supposed to stake their credibility on how much they conform with the opinions of the British government? LOL! And exactly why I find your approach and trust in that website silly.
Oh, the mods at c/politics! Let’s do a quick census on how many of them are Russian, African, Asian, can read news in more than one language etc.
What have you disliked about their gaza coverage?
And yes, for an American decision, I used American politicians. It’d be pretty silly to do otherwise “Oh my God, a majority of politicians did not to protect the right to abortion in America, bizzare!” Lol.
Edit: I’d also point out I am neither British not American. Unsure why this matters but it seems to be a thing for you?
Why the hell would you bring up the decision of the US government to illegally invade Iraq as an excuse for a British newspaper endorsing and calling for that invasion and promising it would be a boon to the Iraqi people? Is “Of course the Economist supports whatever Washington decides” is your argument for their being unbiased?
You may not agree with the Economist, but they are not a garbage source.
Removed by mod
