The non-KFC surface of the earth testifies to the fact.
We don’t want to be the arbiter we just kinda got stuck with it cause no one else was left. If you could all not kill each other for 50 years we would really appreciate it.
Everyone keeps arming bombers and shooting boats. This is kinda a no-no for us. Could ya not. We really don’t want to get involved in regional shit.
I mean most of this shit is pretty unpopular with Americans. Unfortunately the US has been sliding deeper and deeper into fascism for a while now, so what we want is less and less important.
There are a lot of assholish nations that could easily take that place, but imo there are enough references to Dalai lama in the show to assume that the fire nation is china
The earth nation exists with a whole theme about being the great stagnant central state empire getting overshadowed by an upstart nation going through industrial revolution first doesn’t give you any hints? Not even the queues and qibao?
Being “just a cartoon” I never thought of the dimension of it, but they literally wiped out an entire nation. Suddenly, comparing the fire nation to any current superpower seems wrong.
Surprised it’s taken this long for people to grasp it.
We control the world’s reserve currency, and hold the ability to fry any country’s economy via economic sanctions whenever we want. We have the largest military in the world and that military is set up for the purpose of invasion. Yeah, China has a massive navy, but their ships are tiny, most likely for the purpose of defending their oceans and eventually taking Taiwan. We on the other hand have more carrier ships than anyone else, all for the purpose of being able to flex our might on anyone in the world.
People used to say that we attempted to police the world. I don’t hear it nearly as much anymore, but it’s accurate. We throw our weight around. We’re the world’s bully.
Fox news calling the US an empire is not new. How old do you all think the moniker “Empire State” is? It’s wild how it’s in our language but we just don’t think about it.
But America really is the greatest nation in the world. On account of the fact that 100% of working class people here in the US hate what their government is doing.
To the contrary: there are so many potential stances if you take “100%” as a ballpark. But I think we’ve fallen into a common pitfall of non-verbal communication: I wasn’t trying to argue with you. I was simply asking for clarification out of curiosity.
If it’s any consolation, I should point out that I do agree with you in thinking that America is great. We have our share of problems, some dire and heartbreaking. However it is my conviction that, given enough time, during which we will inevitably bear witness to many more injustices, they will be solved, if never to a satisfactory degree, that being the nature of progress.
And most of this critique of empire is completely lost in Legend of Korra. A show that does nothing to reconcile the past with the present. Instead it preaches literal horseshoe theory as the over arching message of the show.
"what did Amon want? Equality for all. Unalaq? He brought back the spirits. And Zaheer believed in freedom. […] The problem was, those guys were totally out of balance and they took their ideologies too far. " - Toph, EP 43, “The Calling”
Each of these villains, including the final one, Kuvira, represent a kind of ideological boogie man.
Amon is the minority rights Boogie Man, he espoused the ideals of equality. One could interpret him as the white genocide boogie man but there is little evidence of any kind of true class division between bender’s and non-benders. A shallow caricature at best.
Unalaq was the religion or spirituality boogie man, or could be interpreted as the “return to tradition” boogie man.
Zaheer is the anarchist boogie man.
Kuvira is the totalitarian dictator aka Communist boogie man.
At no point in the show does Korra have to struggle against any of these ideas and combat them in any ideological way. They are all metaphorical punching bags. Each of them “to extreme” to allow to exist. Each contrasted against each other as though they were equals.
Republic City stands at the center of the show as the only constant and good political organization. A representative democracy. Tied explicitly to Aang to drive the point home, if you had any doubt’s about its goodness. A stand in for America with its own statue of liberty.
In the end, the heir to the Earth Kingdom Monarchy gives up his throne to install a representative democracy in the Earth Kingdom. The result of this shallow attempt at writing leaves the shows saying almost nothing at all. It’s as if it was written to tell 13 year olds that their anarchist or communist curiosities are misguided and simply a phase.
The whole overarching theme of the two series is totally different.
ATLA is about restoring peace from an objectively big-bad. It’s a story of perseverance and self-improvement. And it’s about recognizing and correcting mistakes…Aang, in saving the world after he abandoned it; and Zuko’s entire story arc.
Contrast that with Korra (which Nick studios really messed up). There was not supposed to be more than one season, initially. And they ruined the last season (or two, I think) by rushing it out as an online exclusive.
If you have to pick a theme for Korra, though, it’s about balance and nuance. None of the big bads are objectively totally bad. They all have redeeming factors and all of them, you could say, are somewhat right. But, as you said, they go too far.
Even towards the end as Korra has the mercury poisoning and PTSD and depression, it’s about inner balance and harmony. Honestly, mental health is a huge topic for a kids show to try to tackle, and they did it wonderfully.
Yes this is exactly my point. Zaheer is a vague shadow that represents Anarchist ideology. He says he wants to bring “Chaos” to the world because somehow that is a preferable world state to order. Except Anarchism isn’t about “chaos” or “lawlessness” its about building horizontal organizations instead of vertical ones. Its about dismantling unjust hierarchies and being vigilant in your critical view of hierarchies. I’m not even an anarchist and I understand that much. Even if I’m talking out the side of my mouth, I’m being more generous then the show.
At no point is Zaheer interested in sticking around to educate the Earth Kingdom citizens in how to reorganize their society in a more ethical and equitable way. He just wants to do wacky disruptive assassination while quoting vaguely Zen Buddhist philosophy about detachment from worldly possessions.
Kuvira is attempting to restore “order” as a result of Zaheer’s Chaos, and they paint her as an “authoritarian” as if her actions are some how philosophically different then Zaheer’s, who enforced his own authority over the Earth Kingdom by killing the Queen. She has no “ideology”. She’s not trying to build an Earth Kingdom ruled by the proletariat. She’s not trying to build a Fascist Earth Kingdom bent on exploiting its citizens for capital gains. None of that is explicitly stated. They simply drag out every anticommunist trope and have her do them all.
reeducation camps
forced labor camps
forced starvation
one party rule as a smoke screen for her singular authority (part of the deal with Yi was the governor would stay in place under Kuvira’s “supervision”)
Again, it’s a shallow exploration of these “ideologies” or worldviews, it’s clear the writers had no intention of understanding them or struggling against them.
But also what is to say about the first season and equality? That equality can “go to far” or that behind every equality leader there is an evil intention? Are we to then look at the equal rights movement and ponder in what ways it went “to far”? Should we look at people like Malcolm X and say they were the Aamon in this situation? We should be skeptical of equality movements? At no point do they address the concerns of the non benders who clearly believed they were second class citizens. Was there a kernel of truth there or did the inequality only exist in their brain washed minds? Which is something people say to minorities today, that there is no inequality it’s just your bad mindset…
It’s a not uncommon theme in anime: some large imperialist/war nation or one associated with fire or occupying Japan.
It’s also worth noting that Japan had a history of imperialism and occupied a significant portion of the world around them not too long ago.
Japan has a pretty similar world view to us. I don’t know a lot about Japanese culture, but I think a lot of its similarities contribute to anime’s popularity in the US. We both have pretty rigid class structures, appreciate violence and capitalism and are enamored with technology.
I know that Avatar is American, perhaps I just wanted to air out a pet theory, however I think it’s good for us to explore some of these assumptions with art and stories.
Yeah the fire nation has way more similarities to Imperial Japan than anyone else. Island nation industrializes before their neighbours and just starts taking over. Style of dress, the archesticure, the names of the characters, all give a Japan vibe way more than an American vibe. But maybe drinking tea in a ceremonial fashion is something that’s part of American culture that I wasn’t aware of.
But currently the US is protecting global trade from pirates and sending weapons to democracies defending themselves from authoritarian psychopaths, which to some people is exactly how the Fire Nation behaved in Avatar I guess.
We have stopped sending weapons to Ukraine but have continued sending weapons to Israel.
Nothing about what you describe as is cut and dry as you are describing it. The easiest way to protect global trade from pirates would be to stop using global trade to arm psychopaths.
So your solution is just to do whatever the psychopath Houthis tell us to do?
Neville Chamberlain tried a policy of appeasement, it didn’t work. And when you’re thinking that psychopaths that attack civilians working on a commercial cargo ship are the good guys, your world view is really messed up.
The guys trying to stop a genocide are the good guys. I do have some criticisms of them, but any actions that decrease the ability to carry out genocide is a net positive.
Is your point that the outcome justifies the means? I feel the need to point out that this statement is dangerous, and statements like it have been used to justify evil acts.
Nowhere in my statement did I defend giving Israel weapons, this is a position I am strongly against.
My point in writing that comment was to point out that using fascist rhetoric is bad, no matter who is saying it. I support the Palestinians, but I would not support dropping nukes on Israel. Stating that any means would be justified gives the other side ammunition to attack you (and others with similar views as you) with.
“Any means” is the same reasoning the USA used when nuking Japan. And it’s the same reasoning that is currently being used to kill innocent civilians in the Gaza strip.
There’s no fascist rhetoric, we’re all capable of understanding context.
I support the Palestinians
What is your support of the Palestinians worth?
You are justifying actions against the people who are making a material impact at stopping a genocide. Even though those actions largely consist of bombing yemeni civilians, and wouldn’t be justified anyway as they’re being performed in service of a genocide.
Once again you have prescribed a position to me that I do not have. I haven’t defended the actions of either the US or Israel, merely pointed out that YOU are using bad arguments.
What is your support of the Palestinians worth?
I have donated a small amount (I still need to pay rent) to the Palestinian relief fund. Is my contribution not valid because the value is only $200? Is that really what we are dogging on people for now?
I have not defended the US bombings in Yemen, and have personally participated in two protests of these attacks (One at my state capital and one at my local university.)
I need you to understand that people will look at statements like “the ends justify the means” as justification to keep killing Palestinians. You are actively making my job as a progressive harder by saying things like this.
I’m honestly not sure if you aren’t looking at names or if you are just arguing in bad faith here. The original comment I responded to was a response to an even worse take that was not made by me. Stop prescribing people positions that they don’t have, have not stated, and have actively been against.
I’m not against the Palestinians or Yemeni population, I am against rhetoric that can be used to justify genocides. You can support these groups just as well by saying things other than “any action against Israel is justified”
An ethnic cleansing of the Israeli population would reduce their capability of genocide, but is still an evil that I could not support.
Apologies, I didn’t notice that you weren’t the original guy responded to, who was condemning the Houthi’s actions.
In the context of the US, condemning the Houthi’s anti-genocide actions is equivalent to supporting the genocide, in the same way that Americans and Israelis criticizing LGBT rights within Palestine or Iran or Russia; while the criticism may be valid within a vacuum, in the context of America, those criticisms only serve to justify imperialism.
If attacking civilians is the mark of psychopathology then the US does a good job of arming such nations. What the Houthis are doing is not happening in a vacuum. They have a history of resisting regimes propped up by the US. Does that make them saints? No. But we’re not any better.
I agree, it’s not happening in a vacuum. The Houthis are doing the old fascist plot of blaming the Jews to gain power. We’ve seen it all before. This is what the biggest losers in history do again and again.
A movement under a flag of “Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews”, is a movement based on hate and it’s destruction is inevitable. Attacking global shipping is just them speeding up the timetable, but the end result was always going to be the same.
A lot of antisemitism mixed with a feeling of religious exceptionalism has resulted in hate movement in Yemen that thinks they won’t go the same way as similar movements in the past. They’re wrong.
The irony of a diverse set of people from around the world talking about an American cartoon and in the same breath saying that American only knows war is not lost on me
The US cultural victory’d so hard that it’s hard to recognize it sometimes
Japan has a similar worldview to Americans because there’s been multiple points in history where we brute forced our ways on them, conveniently at times where their old ways were losing faith.
Forcing Japans borders open while they remained isolated with outdated weaponry, and the end of WW2.
Capitalism was drilled into their culture until it’s teeth sunk in and they had their economic boom.
I think the only war we tried to show our military might “greatness” was the Gulf War. It did establish America as a coalition force to the world.
I think the meme is accurate to people who once supported the war in Iraq. I don’t think it reflects people that opposed it or, people who have since changed their views on it.
Basically every war we did during the Cold War was about “sharing” the greatness of capitalism over communism, too. We’re still pretending our embargo against Cuba is just for the same dumb reason.
Acknowledging that the US has been the leader of the imperial core — the countries that have been colonizing the rest of the world for 500 years now — since WW2 is the realistic, materialist view.
Only difference now is that it’s changed form to mainly the economic subjugation (neocolonialism) of “former” colonies through unequal exchange under capitalism rather than direct military subjugation — though the US still has a major actual settler colony committing a genocide in Palestine right now.
Any country that tries to escape this system (by nationalizing its resources to prevent extraction by unequal exchange, usually by establishing a socialist state) is sanctioned (DPRK, Vietnam in the past, Zimbabwe etc), embargoed (Cuba), overthrown (Chile, Burkina Faso etc), or invaded (Vietnam, Libya, Korea, etc).
Even if it was, using media to explain ideas of politics isn’t new nor is it bad. Like how is using Star Trek or Star Wars or any other piece of media that the public is familiar with on a cultural level inherently a “Gotcha!” to an argument/debate?
“Hey this book that was taught in classrooms has some parallels to current events.” “Wow, you’re using your understandings of the world around you to make commentary? Weirdo.”
That just sounds like you think people who can critically analyze media and the world suck. You must be a very boring person to have a conversation with, I can tell from this brief interaction.
You okay? I’m talking about behavior, and you’re making it about people’s abilities. If you want people to engage in critical analysis, don’t start by saying they’re unable to do it.
Citation needed on that USSR claim, Lucas has only, to my knowledge, spoken of the USSR with respect to the inspiration he took from their film industry. He’s outright stated that the Empire is the US and the Rebels the Viet Cong, plus there are the obvious allusions to the Nazis with Stormtroopers and the color of the Empire’s unirorms, but to my knowledge nothing connecting to the USSR.
This, I disagree with. The USSR was Marxist-Leninist and run by Soviets, not a fascist millitary dictatorship. Whether or not you or I believe the USSR was truly democratic or a betrayal of Socialist values is of little consequence when compared to the vastly different structure of Nazi Germany, which was a blend of corporations and an ethno-state.
The Empire appears to be more similar to Nazi Germany, where there exists a blend of corporations with a totalitarian state, rather than a command economy centered around worker councils.
I think it’s hard to argue that the USSR wasn’t a military dictatorship under Stalin. The USSR was hyper-nationalist and relied heavily on extensive police and military forces that used excessive violence to keep dissenters in line.
The USSR wasn’t pursuing an ethno-state like Germany, but neither is the Galactic Empire. You might argue that despite the Galactic Empire being diverse in species, notably only white human men served as officers and leaders and dominated the military, but I’m not sure that’s an intentional world-building decision rather than that’s just how films in 1977 were made. I’m not yet aware if the USSR was known for being gender and race inclusive in its government or military structure either.
The USSR was a one-party state, and the state did own and control everything. However, this is fundamentally entirely different from Nazi Germany, which was a combination of corporations and a party owning and controlling everything in a totalitarian Capitalist manner.
It’s reductive to call the USSR fascist, in my opinion. The USSR wasn’t a shining beacon of tolerance and democracy, of course, but at the same time it absolutely was not fascist. The Russian Federation, that rose from the ruins of the USSR, is fascist, and run by extremely wealthy Capitalists.
As for equality in the USSR, gender economic equality was generally high overall, especially when compared to other nations, and especially in the military, but not within government. As for racism, it was apparently much, much better than modern Russia, so make of that what you will, but the state was seemingly mostly composed of white men. Homosexuality was made illegal by Stalin, I do know that.
Thanks, no problem! I think it’s totally fine to be firmly against the USSR, for clarification, but I also believe that fascism should be as clearly defined and understood as possible, because in the modern era it poses a genuine threat, so understanding what it looks like and how it operates is key.
Believe it or not, Lucas is capable of finding both positives and negatives about both the US and the USSR.
Most of the aesthetic of Empire architecture is inspired by brutalist Soviet architecture, and ceremony for the Emperor’s arrival was inspired by October Revolution Day military parades.
I acknowledge the US has been the “imperial core”. The thing I take issue with is the finger pointing.
As if the United States is unique in seeking out and pursuing its interests. China and Russia may not be the “imperial core” but, all nations will do what’s in their best interest.
That’s the flaw with nations, the campist lens of “America bad, Russia and China good” isn’t productive. Das all I’m saying.
No other country controls the global financial system like the US, and imperial core countries in general, does through its dollar hegemony and global monopolies.
Which is natural, since the entire modern world, its institutions and trade systems, are built on the past few centuries of brutal colonization of the rest of the world by western europe and japan.
But they don’t, so talking about those "what if"s are pointless. China’s current interests — and, broadly speaking, those of capitalist Russia even after the USSR has been overthrown — are mostly in line with the Global South’s against imperial core countries. There’s a reason sentiment like this is common across the developing world.
Many of western countries’ victims, like Cuba, DPRK, Burkina Faso, Palestine, etc., would not be able to function right now, or perhaps even exist, if they did not have China and Russia’s support. Of course, alot of them like Libya aren’t able to function anymore.
I wouldn’t consider alot of those countries “functioning”. They don’t engage in the same actions because they aren’t able to. Not for any moral reasons. China and Russia support those countries for extractive and political reasons.
Countries don’t have allies because they like each other. Countries ally when it’s beneficial to their interests.
Yes, the United States government has done/continues to do, many terrible things in the name of protecting economic interests. But to sit here and say russia and China some how have the moral high ground is unacceptable to me.
At the core of all of this is the US attempt to remain the world’s hegemonic power, by augmenting military alliances around the world to contain or defeat China and Russia. It’s a dangerous, delusional, and outmoded idea. The US has a mere 4.2% of the world population, and now a mere 16% of world GDP (measured at international prices). In fact, the combined GDP of the G7 is now less than that of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), while the G7 population is just 6 percent of the world compared with 41 percent in the BRICS. Source
I once thought that the US had made mistakes but generally was trying to do the right thing. But the more I read and learned history, the more damning it was towards America.
I once thought that the US had made mistakes but generally was trying to do the right thing
Thing is, there is no “trying” to do something on a national scale. What nations do — what they can do — and how they react entirely depends on their mode of production and material conditions. And that mode of production for the US is imperialist capitalism.
It really does explain so much history. Why were you and I able to see through the charade, and why do others have trouble? I was watching Jonas Ceika’s newest video essay on Urban Guerrillas and left wing terrorism, and it made me think about how left wing groups have trouble translating into mass movements. Something about the conditions being right; and how the conditions will never be right in America.
Well, not “communist” capital C, but certainly socialist, or at least with socialist leanings.
For example private land ownership isn’t really a thing in China, making essentially all natural resources defacto state-owned. It’s actually a really interesting idea IMO.
But to a much lesser extent on some things in the modern day.
For example, China suppressing Uyghurs is on a level the US hasn’t done since Japanese concentration camps in WWII. And it’s been since maybe the US annexing Texas or manefest destiny since they’ve done covert or overt invasion like Ukraine, Georgia, Hong Kong, or planning with Taiwan.
Huh? Pretty sure Guantanamo Bay is still open to this day. Not on the same scale nowadays, sure; but the CCP never claimed freedom as part of its core values either.
Reading comprehension really is a struggle sometimes. They specifically mentioned scale in their comment. Also, I kinda feel like being open about genocide doesn’t make it better.
They also compared Japanese U.S. internment camps during WWII to the current suppression of Uyghurs in China so maybe take what they say with a grain of salt.
Edit: Looks like I got banned for my original comment, so I’ll answer in an edit:
I think they are comparable in that they are horrible treatment of minorities. I think the concentration camps of Japanese Americans was out of extreme xenophobia. I think the reeducation camps are out desire to stamp out any possibility of independence movements. So not very similar, but both very terrible.
I think they are comparable in that they are horrible treatment of minorities. I think the concentration camps of Japanese Americans was out of extreme xenophobia. I think the reeducation camps are out desire to stamp out any possibility of independence movements. So not very similar, but both very terrible.
@JohnDClay@turkishdelight Zenz repurposes the pro-life argument that reduced birth rates are genocide to make it look like Xinjiang getting free healthcare & women who had 3 kids already receiving tubal ligations/ etc. is genocide the same way KKK guys think modernity is white genocide. China literally trained these people to be bilingual realtors and stuff like that, it wasn't even a mega trade program or something. They got people to white collar shit Xinjiang is rich
@conditional_soup If you've heard of the one child policy here's a fun fact none of you "China watchers" know. Most regions and/or minority groups did not get affected. If you were Han or anything in Tibet, or a minority any placd, you could be fruitful and multiply. Just an example of how China deliberately gives minority groups boosted democratic representation, healthcare access, training, and cultural representation. Which is what responsible nations should do (glaring at indian res)
I’ve always thought that if you switch America and Russia/China in most events, it would better fit the narratives.
For example:
America brokered peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
America opened up factories in Afghanistan to provide jobs for the locals who are recovering from a war with China.
America is supporting their ally in Syria and combating terrorists supported by Russia.
Russia went to war with Iraq and killed a million people and destroyed all their infrastructure.
The incarceration rate in China is the highest in the world.
China accused America of spying on them with a weather balloon.
Russia overthrew the Libyan government, spiraling the wealthiest African country into a civil war.
Like seriously, switch the stories around and it better fits the narrative we’re constantly being fed. With the view that libs have of Russia, China and America, events would literally have to play out like this if their view was correct.
America is an endless expansionist that has illegally invaded multiple neighbours by force while calling it a “military exercise”.
America has a semi dictator that gave themselves full unlimited power after being elected once and has since then meddled in every election in order to win
America is an endless expansionist that has illegally invaded multiple neighbours by force while calling it a “military exercise”.
Yes?
America has a semi dictator that gave themselves full unlimited power after being elected once and has since then meddled in every election in order to win
The US literally overthrew their democracy, and then when elections took place within a bourgeois ‘democracy’ interfered in those too. Russia post-overthrow of USSR could never have become a democracy, the US wouldn’t have allowed it.
The “territory” you’re looking for is called NATO. Its members totally join on their own free will, please ignore the regime changes that happen almost always before a country joins.
The only things forcing countries to join NATO are the aggressive invasions of countries like Russia.
They either get invaded (see Crimea, Chechnya, Georgia, …) or join the defensive alliance of NATO so they get to keep at least a semblance of individualism.
NATO wouldn’t be needed if Russia kept to itself.
If you want forced regime changes, just look at all the territories before they were invaded by Russia.
Ah yes, famous invasions during the 90s. Where NATO expanded a shitload after promising not to.
Also your knowledge of these events is lackluster. Gerogia attacked Russia, not the other way around (one couldsay Russia over reacted, but that does not change the fact who initiated hostilities). Chechnya was a civil war (a country can’t invade itself). Crimea seceeded. So all of your examples are wrong.
Oh and Russia asked to join NATO in the eaely 2000s. Got denied.
IF you want to go further back it gets even better. NATO was founded before the Warsaw Treaty Org, the latter was founded after the USSR asked to join NATO and was denied.
You are correct that NATO is a anti soviet/anti russian alliance, but not for the reasons you think.
Also Texas and California. If we change the point of view of what constitutes power in USA this days from precidency to wealth, both questions are easily answered, specially considering all the elections USA or money coming from USA has meddled with (Chile for starters, Mexico, Honduras, Argentina, Guatemala, Cuba, Libya, Iran, …).
I like how some people are claiming americans are aware of this lol
If most americans were sufficiently aware and organizing against it accordingly (if they’re not organizing, they’re not aware enough) the imperialist gov would already have been toppled.
Power. Your fantasy assumes the weight of mere knowing outweighs the power wielded against the citizenry. No revolution started with the whole citizenry waking up. You know why. If not, read more and be less disingenuous.
No revolution started with the whole citizenry waking up
Obviously not everyone lmao.
What every revolution has had is people informing others about what the issue is (often by pamphlets, news, etc), what needs to be done, and organizing. The vast majority of successful revolutions are only those that had organized revolutionaries.
I like how some people are claiming americans are aware of this lol
What every revolution has had is people informing others about what the issue is
If most americans were sufficiently aware and organizing against it accordingly
The vast majority of successful revolutions are only those that had organized revolutionaries.
OK. I see your messaging is at odds with itself and you understand the assignment.
You got top spot on this here memetic sharing of ideas. Which message for the Americans at home who by virtue of reading you on Lemmy are closer to you than not?
Some zoomers and some millennials know it. Boomers don’t know or actually think it’s a good thing, with some rare exceptions.
Either way your take is extremely juvenile and simplistic. There’s a lot more at play with revolutions than people knowing their country did something bad. It takes a lot more than that to get people off their ass, with very few exceptions historically, and even those exceptions are usually led by rich people looking out for themselves.
People need to have their own livelihoods threatened before they do anything. And there are always power systems in place that deliberately make it hard for people to organize.
Add comment