Today is my last day of classes (then it just exams) and thus my final History class of the semester, that is, until May.
I haven’t had a history class in about a week as class time was reserved for consultations. Anyway, this class we had to read around four out of the following seven articles:
Both Israel and Palestinian supporters accuse the other side of genocide
Funnily enough, the last two articles were changed from the original assignment. He did this because after 6 MONTHS of Israel’s assault on Gaza he figured it would be appropriate to change some of the articles. Here were the old ones:
Okay so the lecture was basically us going over every article. We started with Srebrenica. What was said in class was that it was a mass killing against Bosnian muslims, specifically the men and boys, committed by Christian Serbians. It happened during the break up of Yugoslavia. This event led to international outrage resulting in NATO getting involved. No, it was not stated what NATO actually did. A student brought up a statement made in the article about how remembering past genocide will not prevent future ones. Thoughts and prayers mean nothing.
Next was Darfur. Not much was said except that there is ethnic prejudice against the Bantu speaking people and 2 million have been displaced. The article also talks about the Principle of Sovereignty. I guess it did get me thinking about when the provincials of sovereignty should be upheld and when it doesn’t matter. Where does it apply?
Rohingya was next and this one had almost no class time dedicated to it as barely anyone is class read the article about it. It was another genocide against a Muslim group and it has a colonial legacy. My professor made it an important note that we can’t blame modern/current crimes on previous colonial powers, which is this case was Britain. We can’t say that if Britain was never involved then this would have never happened in the first place. I don’t think thats what anyone in class as saying, I think they meant that Britain holds part of the blame. Weirdly defensive haha.
So about the Uyghurs… holy shit. So aa student said that there are muslims stuck in concentration/reeducation camps in China and he motive behind this was because of an “incident” involving a few Uyghur terrorists that resulted in China going overboard and over securing all Uyghurs rather than just the few radicals. He said this persecution includes sterilizing Uyghur people. The class, including the professor, talk about how China is doing settler colonialism in Xinjiang because they are displaying the Uyghur minority and replacing them with Han Chinese. The Uyghurs used to be a majority but aren’t anymore. While it hasn’t risen to physical genocide, it s definitely a cultural genocide as Uyghurs aren’t allowed to speak their own language, practice their religion, practice their culture, have beards, etc. My professor said that Uyghurs can’t even text their friends a passage from the Quran or they will get arrested due to the mass surveillance they are suffering under. Apparently Canada had a vote in parliament in whether to call what is happening in Xinjiang a genocide, the liberals hesitated to say yes while the Conservatives overwhelmingly said yes. China then got mad and brought Canada’s residential school problem to the UN. My professor said that the residential schools are very similar to the camps but in Canada’s case it has acknowledged and apologized for the atrocities and is trying to make up for it. Although they probably can’t truly ever make up for it. At least in Canada you can talk about the residential schools but the same cannot be said for China. Okay…
Ukraine time! Of course it’s a Timothy Snyder article… So the Ukrainian girl in my class was kind of heavily relied on during this discussion. She said that Russia is using this narrative of Ukraine and them being sister/brother nations, a single people. She also said that Russia is pushing the story of nationalists in Ukraine being emboldened by the west (the way she said it implied that Russia was lying) and that there are Ukraine separatists that justify its war; she calls all of that rhetoric and does not bring up the atrocities that happened in the Donbas. So thats super cool. My professor then said there is a cult of antiquity (an aspect of genocide we talked about a lot in this class) when it comes to Ukraine as was proven with the Tucker Carlson interview where Putin drones on and on about the past and erases Ukrainian identity. Also Ukraine is very agricultural so there’s that too. He called Putin a 19th century imperialist and that genocidal perpetrators always try to justify themselves by saying they are acting defensively. He then goes on to say that Canadian media is free so we can see what is truly happening in Ukraine (bullshit) but Russians have been propagandized for many years and don’t know anything. Well that sucks for me, I guess I cannot use Russia sources for my paper because they’re all little confused babies. Anyway, he tells us to read the Genocide Handbook Snyder talks about and that he himself read it on the bus, he says there are explicit genocidal language used in it against Ukrainians. I don’t know what handbook he is talking about. When I looked it up just more Snyder stuff came up.
Last was Palestine. This one was… a lot, to say the least. Not in terms of content but with the comments made. So what was said in class was that certain government outlets (not the head himself) in Israel have made calls for extermination of Palestinians and, for some reason, he brings up how the Russian media also makes statements of explicit intent (for genocide?). A student saiid the situation is complex as many are debating if it is or isn’t genocide, some say that not enough damage has been caused to constitute genocide (they’ve had 75 years, there been enough I think). Another student talks about the targeting of aid workers and media personnel, with Israel brushing it off as the “nature of war.” Comments were made (by Israel, not the students) that the Palestinians should have just fought against Hamas instead of electing them but a student said that in desperate times there are desperate measures, if the terrorist group is their only option then they will take it. My professor seems fairly connected to this issue (as he is with Ukraine, for some reason. Russophobia, maybe?) because he has Israeli friends and he personally believes Israel has a right to exist, as does Palestine. He also mentioned that he is very critical of Netanyahu as he empowered Hamas to use them as an excuse to escalate violence. He also said that a majority of Israelis are against Netanyahu and are protesting on mass. He then asks if there is a settler colonial aspect to this conflict: yes, obviously. Students talked about Palestinians being kicked from their homes and concentrated into the smallest spaces ever, real estate events being held to sell Palestinian land, and etc. My professor says this a bit of historical irony as the Jews of Europe were a people with no land and once they got it they did so much with the agriculture (unlike the Nazi view of Jewish people as cosmopolitans) and how they expanded.
But that is where the class ended. He thanked us for being a part of this course and he felt bad about how depressing the content was.
So what do you all think? I know I’m a bit sad and disappointed. I wanted more than what I got but I don’t think I should complain so much.
Love how China literally does the opposite of what they accuse it of doing.
Liberals are incapable of critical thinking.
From the professors I have had so far in both History and Political Science, most of them (except one) seem to despise China. It’s like I can’t go a single week without hearing some sort of comment about China, whether its the Uyghur accusation or the fact that they have nukes and that makes them a threat (even though they would not be the first in a conflict to use them).
I do find it odd that my professors do lack investigatory skills. I thought you had to be good at researching to get a PhD and yet that is not demonstrated well in my classes, at least when it comes to modern topics (although the holodomor week in my history class was also garbage and barely touched the surface of the famine).
Anytime recent news or developments are brought up or discussed my professors never fail to parrot the same surface level media crap. They don’t bother to read public records (like the UN stuff) or ever look into documents they have access to as academics. They just fail to go deeper. It’s very frustrating. They seem to expect a lot more from us than we do of them…
I do find it odd that my professors do lack investigatory skills.
I'm guessing he could totally do solid research on the topic but he trusts the media to have done that job for him. Ask a quantum physicist about sociology and they might tell you the most boring cliché they read in the mainstream press
It’s just sad, though. He knows the media lies, I mean, he has to since he says Russian media does it all the time and yet he can’t afford the same skepticism towards Canadian news sources. It’s weird but it’s not supposed to be surprising, and yet it still is for me. I think I just hold high standards for my professors and some of them are not meeting it…
The core tenet of liberalism is the unquestionable belief that you live in a Free© Democracy™ which to them implies that the media is independent and objective
The saddest part is that it boils down to white supremacy, "civilised vs barbarian" rhetoric
They got where they are by mastering the skill of activating their brains only when allowed to.
I do find it odd that my professors do lack investigatory skills. I thought you had to be good at researching to get a PhD and yet that is not demonstrated well in my classes, at least when it comes to modern topics (although the holodomor week in my history class was also garbage and barely touched the surface of the famine).
At least you've learned something that I didn't learn until I was almost 30, that western academia is more obsessed with smelling their own farts than actually learning about anything or challenging their preconceived notions, and that alleged "scientists" or "historians" have no real investigative ability, or ability to apply the scientific method to their knowledge. They have it backwards, they are the Smart Ones, the Intelligent Ones, and so anything they believe is true, because they are intelligent.
These are the people who get to the top in western academia, because they just peddle the bullshit the capitalists want them to without any thoughts of their own, 0 analysis of anything. There's a reason that all the development in scientific fields in the west is done by immigrant scientists, from countries that actually bother to teach proper investigative skills.
Srebrenica
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/srebrenica071114.htm
Darfur
https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=A072A6015ADF3D10FB0FC22E00F810B4
He called Putin a 19th century imperialist
I laughed out loud when I read this. How is Putin comparable to, say, Napoleon Bonaparte? Putin is not an adventurer‐conqueror. His government simply wants to replace Ukraine’s pro‐Western one with something pro‐Eastern. That’s mild compared to the Napoleonic wars and Imperial America’s continued conquest of native regions.
So what do you all think?
I can’t say that I am surprised. It is typical for anticommunists to be completely silent regarding the political significance to charges of ‘genocide’; they almost always take the concept for granted. Only when they’re on the receiving end of the charges is it time for (attempts at) analysis, nuance and contemplation. The violence against Gazans is not a duel between two equal parties; it bears comparison to the Ottoman Empire’s attempted extermination of the Armenians, but judging from your summary, it looks like your class omitted that as well.
I certainly appreciate you getting to understand our opponents’ mindsets better, but doing it on a regular basis can be excessively taxing, especially when what they say is so predictable. You deserve a vacation.
I think he was calling Putin a 19th century imperialist because he went on a historical rant during the Carlson interview. I actually found the interview quite interesting and I do believe that the history matters (especially when it comes to why there is such a strong far right presence in Ukraine). I don’t know if he was trying to relate Putin to Napoleon, I know my professor made reference to pre-Bolshevik Russia so maybe he was saying Putin was a Russian empire enthusiast? I can’t say for sure as he didn’t say too much.
I really do believe my professor, even though he’s teaching a class about genocide, takes it for granted. He said to the class that six months ago he hesitated calling what was happening in Palestine a genocide but now it seems more clear and South Africa has a very good case. You are correct that he never made a reference to the Armenian genocide (although we did learn about it in class) with regard to what Israel is doing to Palestinians.
This whole semester has been quite exhausting and I look forward to my week long vacation until I go back for spring/summer (expedited semester). I do believe I got something out of this experience, I know how to approach certain topics better and how to keep my head down since apparently my concerns about Nazis will be brought up and then shot down immediately. I still do worry immensely about my paper but that weight will be lifted once I hand it in next week. Then I can rest for a bit before I head back into the depths.
(Not so) fun fact! My professor said that six months ago he wouldn’t really consider what was happening in Palestine genocide, he was skeptical, but now its more clear what’s going on…
This shit has been happening for over 75 years! But I guess history only started in October!
I think it would have been pretty funny if you pulled out Tiktok videos of mosques in China. Ridiculous fantasies.
I know I’m a bit sad and disappointed. I wanted more than what I got but I don’t think I should complain so much.
With this particular class or your experience in the university as a whole?
Mainly this specific class but it can also apply to university as a whole, I guess. I don’t think I can complain about my experience in its entirety, though, due to me only being on semester 3. But I am definitely disappointed in this class. I thought it would go deeper into genocide as a whole but it really didn’t. I also think the whole making fun of Mike Davis thing just turned me away from the course for the rest of the semester. Like the holodomor classes, I literally learned nothing new and it felt like I was back in middle school again because it was the same level of analysis which is nothing.
Even though I’m frustrated I do, in a way, think this class was worth taking in terms of finding out how this institution conducts itself. I guess you could say I have a personal beef as well due to the email situation. It doesn’t really bother me anymore but it’s still a thing that happened.
Keep your head up. Once it's all over in earnest you'll be glad to leave it all behind. For the moment just focus on getting good grades even though the class does sound terrible.
I truly do believe this is all worth it, even if my posts don’t show that very well haha. There are still more classes to take and professors for me to meet so I know there will most likely be future positives. Even if my undergrad sucks I do have hope for my masters. I do look forward to my next semesters.
That's awesome. Don't forget to try getting into things like student organisations to find peers with similar views. Good luck with the upcoming semester and please study a lot.
Anyway, he tells us to read the Genocide Handbook Snyder talks about and that he himself read it on the bus, he says there are explicit genocidal language used in it against Ukrainians. I don’t know what handbook he is talking about. When I looked it up just more Snyder stuff came up.
Apparently its what Snyder calls an article published by a Russian news org. The article talks about how a denazification process would be handled in Ukraine. Its a bit dense with Russian chauvinism, but quite clear on what denazification actually entails.
The Russian news organization is apparently state-owned, or at the very least Kremlin positive. It’s kind of long so I don’t have time to read it but from what I did read in the denazification part it seemed pretty standard. The whole “de-Ukainianize” thing (which I did not read thoroughly) was really weird. Is this article genocidal?
I don't think it is genocidal, but it is extremely chauvinistic. The main goal outlined in the text is the dismantling of the Ukrainian nation state, replacing it with people's republics under the supervision of Russia. My question relating to this would be, does denying the right to a nation state (without destroying the people) count as genocide? This article sort of draws a parallel with Germany post WW2, where German people were denied a unified nation state because of the crimes of Nazism. So for Russia it would be okay to do the same thing to Ukraine.
Just to share some thoughts on the text, here are the things I find most problematic:
- It refers to the idea of Ukrainian nation as "an artifice created by communists", which I find absurd an ahistorical.
- It advocates for the collective punishment of civilians by making them endure hardships of war. A strange sentence to see but i guess it makes sense within the broader context of dismantling the Ukrainian nation state.
- It claims Russia as the sole nation left that uphold "european values" but at the same time it claims that Russia is a leader of the decolonised world. Apart from the chauvinism, it is quite contradictory to me. Also claims that achievements of the USSR were purely of the Russian peoples. Just pains me to read stuff like this. Russia has the problem that good soviet era foreign policy has a fresh coat of chauvinist paint over it.