Please, before reporting this post for racism, familiarize yourself with the history of the phrase “Uncle Tom.” The phrase has been used by the Black community against itself, recently in Spike Lee’s Bamboozled.
“black people say it why can’t I”
and how am I supposed to know who is black or not?
Guess you should just allow the n-word too then because people might be black.
Not the same at all, one is used exclusively to denigrate someone for their race, the other is used to criticize people who are actively supportive of/complicit in the oppression of their own community/race
I can’t believe this is the response. I am seriously at a loss for words.
For the record, I did not report this post for racism. I do believe the rhetoric absolutely enables white hegemony and should not be seen as subversive or somehow post racial.
I am done with this thread. I literally just came to get screenshots for archival purposes. Cheers everyone ✌️
“ProgressivePolitics” lol 😂
Is F.D. Signifier not a progressive?
For the people who don’t understand the post:
Holy shit, something is broken in people’s brains. He said “Israeli families and the people of Gaza” he’s giving a message about peace and you’re nitpicking it because you want to find a reason to hate people.
If anything he’s excluding people in Israel because he didn’t say “people of Israel” and only expressing sympathy for the families of the victims of Hamas. Also if he were to say “Palestinian people” that would be implying that this ceasefire plan is also dealing with problems in the West Bank, which it is not.
Obama is correct, this is a ceasefire for the families of the victims of Hamas and for the people of Gaza, but not for all Israelis or all Palestinians. There’s still a lot more work to do. But go ahead and write your petty and hateful comments and pretend you’re helping Palestinians when you’re not helping anyone.
Denying Palestinians a communal identity has always been a key approach to dehumanization within Western discourse.
The Western world has historically tied itself into knots justifying horrific atrocities like the Atlantic slave trade while trying to present itself as a champion of personal freedoms.
Indeed. And also he is putting a few people who have a relative guarding the concentration camp on the same level of suffering as the people in the concentration camp undergoing a Holocaust. This is not a both sides moment.
People in Gaza might refer to themselves as “people of Gaza.” And there’s aid groups with the name. And plenty of other instances where it’s used to humanize them (seems so to me at least). I’ve already done more work looking for this theory to line up than the ones proposing the theory.
Nobody spends their free time looking shit up anymore do they? Throw me a bone here. Give me a white paper study on just how, precisely, Obama is dehumanizing gazans through his speech patterns. I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying I’d like to be right. But being right takes effort. Evidence.
“Might” doing a whole lot of work here lol, you’re asking other people to provide you with academic sources but you can’t even be bothered to find a single example to support your disingenuous speculation? Fuck a cactus
For me it is the equivocation more than anything else. And you just have to look at how the west treats single, child-free adults to see how they prioritize families as morally superior. There is something charged about the word family in that context.
I’ve already done more work looking for this theory to line up than the ones proposing the theory.
Prove it. Show your work.
Obama’s just jealous that he isn’t ordering the drone strikes on brown families anymore
“Uncle Tom” means something very specific, not “black man I dislike/disagree with”. Using it like that is just racist.
Pretty much. The moment I saw Uncle Tom in the title…
“Uncle Tom” means something very specific
I’ve never heard that phrase before (also not American, so probably never would have).
I’m guessing it’s some sort of reference for a slave collaboration with slavery owners?
Nailed it in one. It’s a term derived from the book Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which features a black slave of the same name. The character is widely criticized for diminishing the harm and threat of slavery to black people. In short, an “Uncle Tom” is a black person that takes the side of the oppressors against their own people, usually for little-to-no reward other than being “one of the good ones.” To use the epithet so liberally just because the person is black is not ok.
It’s honestly insane to me that Uncle Tom came to mean this, when in the novel the character literally refuses to inform against escaped slaves and is flogged to death for it. A quite unfortunate collapse of an extremely complex character in one of the most important novels in the history of abolitionism.
It’s definitely been Flanderized pretty drastically over time, but honestly, I can see where it stemmed from, with his “happy” times with the “good” master. While I don’t expect Stowe intended it as such, anything but a full bore condemnation of slavery, top to bottom, is understandably seen (at least by modern eyes) as being soft on it, if not outright apologetic. And the character’s inclusion in minstrel shows and the general popularity with white people probably didn’t help it any on that front.
“Insane” was a strong word, and I actually do understand how it came to mean what it has. It just seems like anybody who knows what it means to be called an “Uncle Tom” who also takes some time to learn more about the character winds up being shocked that he isn’t just some kind of prototype of Stephen from Django Unchained.
It’s always wild when characters in the public perception are very different to in the source material.
Jeckyll & Hyde is another example. Jeckyll is a doctor who drinks a potion which changes his personality into a ruffian. Except he’s not, at least in the original short story.
Jeckyll is always in control and aware of what he’s doing. All the potion does is change his appearance so that he can do the bad things that he’s been doing since he was young without losing his social standing.
The whole point of the story is that his personality doesn’t change at all and that he’s just donning a disguise (albeit a sci-fi disguise) so that he can get away with it without losing his day job.
Yet in every adaptation is basically treated as a werewolf story.
Whoa. That is very specific. TYVM for the explanation.
TBF in the book he’s much less of an ‘Uncle Tom’. It was the movies that changed the character to the servile slavery-lover we all know and hate, and so that’s really where the label comes from.
So you agree, it was used accurately here?
“Uncle Tom” is a black person that takes the side of the oppressors against their own people
So 100% accurate for the drone king
Yeah that caught me way off guard.
He may be too middle of the road but to call him a race traitor like that is absolutely wild.
Like this is a headline I expect to see from a hardcore rightwing publication.
Hey, I get it. Obama wasn’t a bad President on the scale of US Presidents, but there are a lot of left wing people who have genuine grievances with him.
I could see anyone who is an advocate for or Middle Eastern themselves be pretty damned pissed at him, considering he dropped twenty-six thousand bombs on seven countries. This was AFTER he won the Nobel Peace Prize.
I was right smack in the middle of the Finance Industry back in the 2008 Crash and paid very close attention to what he did to “rescue the Economy” in the aftermath of it.
Let’s just say that the complete total crash from well above most of Europe to near zero of Social Mobility in America and the acceleration of the growth in inequality (especially between people whose income comes from Work vs people whose income comes from Asset Ownership) and subsequent problems with impoverishment of the Working Class which fed the growth of the vote in Far Right Populists like Trump, are all down to which kind of people Obama choose to Rescue and which ones he chose to pay for it.
He didn’t just cause grievances for left wing people, he fucked up the US with his choices at a pivotal moment, pretty much plowing, fertilizing and seeding the field were Trumpism grew.
His influence is way more massive than it seem to many, mainly because of the moment in History when he became president made his choices have far reaching effects that structurally pivoted the US Economy which in turn cascaded into changes to the US Politics and Society.
However, as he’s a veritable songbird with the gift of the gab (plus Liberals pushed for decade the whole Racist idea that his race made him inherently a better person) a lot of people formed opinions on him based on his race and his speeches rather than on his actions.
You make a lot of great points. It does make me wonder if I to cut Obama a lot of slack because of the color of his skin. I certainly bought the hope rhetoric before I began to see a pattern of the status quo.
I still remember how much hay was made from him being “The first Afro-American President”: the Democrats sold the hell out of him being Black as a good thing (not least to get more votes for him from Black Communities) whilst the Republicans sold the hell out of him being Black as a bad thing.
His race kept getting dug up (and, as you see here, still is) and IMHO it together with his truly exceptional gift of the gab obscured the actual character of the man as shown by his actions which were often pretty negative and had widespread negative consequences some of which still resonate today.
In many ways he’s a symbol of American politics highly divisive and mainly performative approach to discrimination, IMHO.
Besides being famous for drone striking and murder in the Middle East, Obama’s most impactful policy on America was bailing out Wall Street with American taxpayer dollars and surpressing protests against it.
Many corrupt billionaires could have lost their assets in 2008 but Obama is the reason the elite cabal is still alive and kicking. And they were even able to buy the dip.
He is definitely a race traitor and his policies were racist.
Explain.
Ask me nicely
No.
OK fuck off then.
L take
You have zero knowledge of history and this slimy POS.
Another L take
LOL another well funded comment, to be expected from an easily fooled simpleton, defending a horrible warmonger and enemy of the people.
L take
He’s a sleazy sociopath with the gift of the gab who happens to be Afro-American.
The last part has nothing to do with the rest, both in a negative sense and a positive sense - sleazy sociopaths with the gift of the gab come in all sizes, shapes and colors.
In fact, it’s actually a form of Prejudice to expect a black American President to be any better towards Afro-Americans than a non-black one: Racism but “positive”, the kind that liberals tend to voice towards minorities whose votes they want to get.
He’s a sleazy sociopath with the gift of the gab who happens to be Afro-American
Indeed the last part has got nothing to do with the first, nobody said it had.
It is however relevant since we’re talking about Uncle Tom and race.
…to expect a black American President to be any better towards Afro-Americans than a non-black one:
Another thing I never said, are you not reading my comments or are just misinterpreting things deliberately to find some non-existent racism?
The entire logic of using an “Uncle Tom” on Obama is that he is expected to treat black people better because of being himself black, but is not doing so, “hence” he is like Uncle Tom.
It’s Racist to expect that as a black person he would treat black people better both because of the “he’s black hence” part (i.e. expecting that what one does depends on skin color) and the expectation that people should help people of the same skin color (which when that skin color is “white” is literally a white supremacist dog-whistle).
In summary, the entire concept of Race Traitor - which for Afro-Americans is encapsulated in calling them an Uncle Tom - is Racist as fuck, which is probably why even the NAZIs would throw around accusations of people being Race Traitors when they were deemed Arians but did not support the NAZIs.
The non-Racist take is to expect that people in positions of power should help people in need, quite independently of the race of any of them. From that viewpoint, which has no “Race Traitor” concept, Obama by his own actions is just another sleazy sociopath.
Obama is literally defending Apartheid and sent 38 billion dollars to Israel which is why I called him Uncle Tom in the title. Fun fact Americans are not the only actual people in this world.
he is expected to treat black people better
No he is not. You keep making up things.
And so double down while baselessly accusing others of racism, that is really despicable.Sure mate, that’s why he was called Uncle Tom which is a form of slander against Afro-Americans which accuses them of being a Race Traitor, which is literally the idea that one didn’t do enough for one’s race.
It is more of a pejorative nowadays. This is also not the first tme it has been done
https://usso.uk/research/deconstructing-uncle-tom-abroad-the-case-of-an-american-president/
The context here is Obama has already been criticized in the exact same way by a Palestinian activist. They are probably paying homage to this.
I’m not clear what your point is here. That it’s ok because other people did it? That is a poor excuse for casual racism.
If you’re just pointing to the term’s historical context, that’s besides the point. I’m not saying that the term is universally racist, I’m saying that it’s racist to use the term in this context.
Are you trying to say that Uncle Tom is a racist term no matter what? Because Obama definitely sided with the oppressors and that definitely had negative consequences for black people (as well as a bunch of others). So like, he fits the base definition of the term.Edit: After reading your other comments I think I get it. Obama didn’t do enough that specifically hurt black people, it was always pretty general. Thanks for explaining.
Trying to understand what is really going on here.
This is a repeat of a past well publicised remark of a Palestinian activist. They were basically giving him a nod.
Obama really fucked over the Middle East dropping more than 20,000 bombs and conducted almost a thousand drone strikes that killed mostly innocent people.
I am not sure why it is racist to use it. Is it merely because they are white? Or because it is undeserved?
I think it would be offensive to misuse this term. So my question now would be did they misuse this word.
I have heard Uncle Tom summarized as a person who sides with oppressors against the oppressed thus becoming a traitor.
I personally can see why someone would consider him to be an uncle tom (even if I don’t agree with it). Now on the other hand, if they did it because they were critiquing him for his Middle Eastern policy then saying that is actually pretty poetic.
A bit of insider knowledge meant jab at what a lot of people consider to be one of the better US Presidents. Something someone like Obama would immediately recognize.
I am going to have to disagree with you on this one, but I could be reading too much into this.
I am not sure why it is racist to use it.
It’s because the term is unrelated to the criticism and is only used here because he’s a black man. If the criticism was about how he handled race relations in the US, then it’d be contextually appropriate, though still overly incendiary, imo.
I have heard Uncle Tom summarized as a person who sides with oppressors against the oppressed thus becoming a traitor.
Have you ever heard it used against someone who’s not black? No, because it’s not a general term for “oppressors” at large or of any race - it has a very specific and narrow use case. It’s not an “insider jab”, it’s calling him out as a race traitor. Do you really think that’s ok here?
Also, you keep saying “she”. I don’t know OPs gender, but Rachel didn’t use the term, probably because she knows it’s so inappropriate.
I didn’t mean to sex Geneva, I went back to correct it to they. It was probably transfer from just reading Ms Rachel.
I don’t think it was unrelated honestly. I have seen Uncle Tom used outside black culture many times, particularly in the workplace.
I’m giving you context and specific reasons why it’s wrong. “My coworkers use it” is not suitable proof that it’s not. Maybe they’re racist. Maybe they’re just naive. It’s at best anecdotal evidence.
TBH, I’m not really sure why you’re still defending this after responding to OPs own disproportionate reply about what they meant. If it’s a term you weren’t familiar with, that’s ok, but going out of your way to defend this is a good way to erode any plausible deniability you had.
Uncle Tom can be used unironically to describe a traitor of any group. I know this because this is how people use it.
I was just trying to understand why someone would say that and it not necessarily be racist. I think I understand it now. Obama can definitely be considered an Uncle Tom for many of his actions of betrayal (there were a lot).
I would not call him that though because I to feel it is disrespectful. Considering the death and destruction he caused is it really disrespectful though. This is where I can see someone throwing a rude comment back in his face because of how badly he failed the Middle East.
I don’t think you are capable of recognizing this. That is okay.
It’s Racist because his race is irrelevant for the kind of person he is.
Further, somebody of a specific race treating people of their own race better than people not of their race is pure and unadulterated Racism, so expecting somebody to have “loyalty to their Race” is literally expecting them to be Racist.
That specific saying is anchored on the expectation of race loyalty and using it for Obama is anchored on the expectation that it’s his Race that does or should dictate his behavior, both which - as I explained above - are Racist expectations.
I don’t think Obama’s race was irrelevant to the kind of person he was, but I think your point may be his race (ugh, I hate saying it like that) did not define him.
I have never heard of racism being derived from something positive like loyalty. If we followed this line of reasoning then anytime someone refers to someone as their “brother” out of a sense of loyalty would be racist?
I think you last point makes some good sense. It is a racist to think his race negatively affects his behavior. This is assuming though the only critique of Uncle Tom is racism, but betrayal exists beyond just racism.
So I think I am back to my original thought. I would not say that Obama is an Uncle Tom, but I think other people could say it without necessarily being racist. In this respect Uncle Tom isn’t about applying a label of inferior or superior to a particular race, but about a story about betrayal and class struggle.
People who go around expecting Race Loyalty and hence believe in the idea of Race Treason are being Racist because they have expectations on people which are entirely based on their Race rather than their character as individuals, including that such people should treat others differently depending on their Race.
It’s just that some people who think like that see such a posture as “positive” because it’s not in favor of their own Race but a different one - treating people differently depending on their race to help other Races is the Liberal variant of Racism, whilst the Fascists want the race that benefits to be their own.
Most people who believe in the first form of discrimination don’t see it as Racism, even though as with everything, if some are getting better treatment then others are getting comparatively less better treatment, which would be fine if people in need were getting better treatment and those not in need were not, but when the selection process is based on race rather than actual individual need then many who need don’t get better treatment and many who don’t need do get better treatment.
Notice how the whole Israel Genocide really brought to light how that “positive” racism wasn’t at all positive: there was a lot of positive views and positive treatment for some people merely for being Jewish, quite independently of need or actually deserving it as individuals (which is what makes it Racism). Naturaly the Zionists and Israel weaponized all the positive predisposition towards that ethnic group by passing themselves as the representatives of that group, giving them the room to commit the most Racist Genocide of the XXI Century, comparable only in its cruelty to the actions of the NAZIs, which is still ongoing.
All that “positive” predisposition along ethnic lines towards anybody of a specific ethnicity turned out to have the extremely nasty effect of giving the most murderous assholes amongst that ethnicity the room to commit the most atrocious of acts, exactly because when people are judged by Race not by character, the assholes can hide behind the Race.
Uncle Tom means racist black man in favor of white people and the usage is correct.
Obama is a racist and mass murderer of brown and black people. And now he’s doing PR for Apartheid.
That is a pretty brutal take.
Personally I just think he’s an equal opportunity asshole and sociopath.
He does what’s best for him and everybody else, white, black or any other race, are only important when he can use them to further his own interests, otherwise screw them.
So yeah, such a person, even being black himself, would not at all care for blacks (unless they’re rich blacks or he can use them for votes), just like he doesn’t care for anybody else beyond their utility to further his own personal upsides.
(Anybody expecting a top US politician to be different just because they’re from a race other than white, a gender other than cis-male or a sexual orientation other than heterosexual is seriously deluded).
That also still fits the definition of Uncle Tom.
Obama participating in a racist system of oppression and Apartheid for his own gain instead of ideological convictions doesn’t magically make it better. His actions matter way more than his motivation.
Incorrect.
I started reading the comments and it brought a question to mind: if Ms Rachel were to criticize the KKK, would she be a race traitor? Is that how it works?
The KKK was fighting to oppress black people, not to liberate white people from oppression.
So no, that is not how it works whatsoever.
If you are looking for other examples similar to Uncle Tom, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gusano
Oh ok lol, thanks. That makes sense.
Btw mate I’m stealing this, fucking brilliant:
No problem it’s not my meme it’s a famous meme of Malcolm X leading the fight for black rights
with violent resistenceby voting really hard.
Here is what Obama wrote:
After two years of unimaginable loss and suffering for Israeli families and the people of Gaza, we should all be encouraged and relieved that an end to the conflict is within sight; that those hostages still being held will be reunited with their families; and that vital aid can start reaching those inside Gaza whose lives have been shattered. More than that, though, it now falls on Israelis and Palestinians, with the support of the U.S. and the entire world community, to begin the hard task of rebuilding Gaza — and to commit to a process that, by recognizing the common humanity and basic rights of both peoples, can achieve a lasting peace.
He’s doing the same as for example the BBC does when they say that Israelis are “killed” and Palestinians “die”, that the IDF “says” whilst Hamas “claims” and mention the 7 October “massacre” whilst the mass bombing of Gaza is an “intervention” or at most “invasion”.
In simple terms: subtly framing one side more positively than the other in order to subconsciously elicit a more positive response in the minds of the audience for one side, all the while claiming neutrality because the message seems neutral, it’s the choice of words which is not.
This is an old trick from Propaganda.
So the OP rightly points that specific kind of Propaganda Spin in Obama’s words.
I did not forget US approves record $38bn Israel military aid deal (2016)
Hypocrites like Obama should shut the F up
Damn what a cunt. He should shut the fuck up.
“In April 2022, there were 4,450 Palestinian security prisoners in Israeli prisons – including 160 children, 32 women, and over 1,000 “administrative detainees” (indefinitely incarcerated without charge”
These people and their families also suffering.
Of course he doesn’t gave a shit. If he cannot stand for oppressed kids and women’s, it is clearly he doesn’t care for oppressed black community in the US.
Why are we mad at Obama again? He mind controlling Trump and Bibi?
Obama spent his entire career supporting israel, and his entire presidency bombing Israel’s enemies on Israel’s behalf.
He was giving billions to israel to continue occupation and when he is out he pretend to care about Palestinians
Obama gave Israel 38 billion of taxpayer dollars. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37345444
For humanizing the aggressors while dehumanizing the victims in a public statement about genocide
By limiting the subject of loss & suffering to the families of Israeli hostages and including every Gazan, respectively? The other Israelis didn’t really suffer like they did.
Seems a malicious misreading on your part: you guys need to work on your filters instead of choosing a less coherent, most antagonistic interpretation.
Thing is any choice would have triggered, the reaction was a given no matter the text
As written “what, Palestinians aren’t families?”
Swap it around "by singling out gazan families, are you trying to exclude and and by inference saying those without a family deserve it?
Use the same term for both? Are you trying to say the suffering for Gaza is the same as Israel?
Can you people even read anymore or it’s all just rage, rage, rage?
“The families of” and “the people of” reads very differently. And starting it with “the families of Israel” makes that the main point. I have no idea about Obamas views on this, but I know he’s intelligent enough to choose his words carefully. And those words absolutely makes Israeli citizens look more like the victims here.
Yeah.
He’s using a Propaganda trick of choosing certain to elicit more positive feelings in the audience towards one side than towards the other, whilst the message itself seems neutral so he can claim neutrality (even better: people tend to take in more easily messages that seem neutral).
It’s a form of manipulation, which he deploys to favor Israel (a country to whom under his orders a lot of American Taxpayer’s money was given).
TIL: Obama was a murderous bastard
I remember wondering why the fuck were we drone stroking weddings full of women and children. If Obama can do it why not Trump.
Thus we get to the crux of the issue.
The weddings and the first responders who showed up to help. We tried to terrorize them out of trying to help each other.
We are a monstrous country.
Because he’s shit? Dude loves drone bombing Middle Eastern kids and apparently promoting Zionist dehumanisation tactics.
Both sidesing a genocide is pretty contemptable. It’s also pretty contemptable that liberals are pretending the mass genocide wasn’t going on for over a year before Trump was elected
I think he meant just the Israeli families of the hostages suffered, not all of Israel, while all people of Gaza suffered.
Obama’s take really does smack of bothsides-itis, and is a very clearly diplomatic approach to what was undeniably a one sided massacre. Ms Rachel is not wrong here.
And he doesn’t need to be political. He is free of any obligation. But he chooses to make a statement while his own country is going through a fascist militant take over.
The only reason would be he must got paid for this.
Instead of merely posting an image of text that
- challenges our ability to verify the message & review context, and
- breaks accessibility, searchability, & fault tolerance for no compelling reason while making the web less usable
could OP provide a link to source? We shouldn’t have needed some other commenter to fill in missing context.
ITT white children upvoting racism so they can virtue signal as “progressive”. LMAO.
Learn about the use of the term before making definitive statements.
Yeah thanks for your link to edit the page on Wikipedia. I don’t really care what you added, nor do I care for apologia, but this is racist bullshit. Sorry you don’t see that. But that’s more of a “you” problem.
Sorry, I fixed the link
…that doesn’t change the point though. It’s still racist as fuck to just randomly call anyone black who does something you don’t like an “uncle Tom”. Obama sucked for reasons unrelated to his race. Focus on those.
ITT liberals who won’t admit Obama was a traitor to everything he pretended to stand for.
Obama was a centrist who kowtowed to corporate interests. Obamacare was a gift to the insurance companies when we could have had M4A. That doesn’t change the fact that calling him an “Uncle Tom” just because he’s black is racist. Oh, also, fun fact, it’s pretty hard to “dehumanize” a group when you’re calling them “people”.
Anyway, go “ree” into your navel, because I really don’t care.
This title and the doubling down on the nonsense is why afro-pessimism exists for the record.
Denying that Obama is a racist and betrays people of color is why afro-pessimism exists for the record.
This comment in particular is very revealing for the record. Continue though so I can have an anecdote to cite later when asked about the big tent approach.
You can principally call out Obama without resorting to an anti-black slur. Is Obama still a tool for white hegemony? OBVIOUSLY. No one is disputing that, it is your language that is the issue here. However, you and your buddies in this thread will continue proving why afro-pessimism and generally the Black Radical Tradition frameworks are so important when engaging with folks like yall.
Is Obama still a tool for white hegemony? OBVIOUSLY.
So… An uncle tom? The term uncle tom is not used demeaningly by colonizers CEO’s and slave owners. It is used by those who despise these oppressors and their collaborators.
Yeah that’s like you saying the n word and redefining the triangle of meaning to claim it is only for ignorant people. That sounds cute, but the premise is ahistorical and not rooted in ANY reality outside of pretentious (dare i say, WHITE) leftist spaces.
This is the first time I’ve ever heard the term uncle tom compared to the n word.
Cheers fam, I have enough teachable material from this exchange now. 🤝
Good luck on your enlightened centrism masterclass
This is the dumbest post I have seen in … hours.
Progressives impotently punching at black people because Progressive social media person is unhappy with purity language tests.
Hows about run for office, Ms Rachel ? Put your past through the ringer publicly to help more than rich children with fast internet, nice computers, and free time to be talked to by a stranger online. You know … children of wealth.
Or make sure y’all stay as divided as possible. That is what wins the day!
Lemmy has been pretty insane lately - like I definitely feel like i’m in the liberal equivalent of /r/TheDonald or /r/conservative. Just absolutely asinine takes, completely out of context, with no nuance whatsoever. The comments are even worse, with insane virtue signaling and justification for abhorrent behavior.
This isn’t why we wanted to move off the big platforms, we weren’t looking for an even more toxic mechanism to spread misinformation and shit opinions.
For the record I’m a liberal, but what is thriving here at Lemmy is something rotten and is bad for the community.
For the record I’m a liberal
You could have started off with that. Saves everyone some time.
I am for sure side-eyeing every post on the instance now. I have never seen the Horseshoe Theory this blatant.
Wait till you find out what server your account is on
This com isn’t about actual progressive politics but continuing to drive a wedge. Keep watching
This post is proof positive, this is the norm here.
An important step on any path to unity is a requirement that we all believe that the inherent value of human life does not vary by national origin. Demanding that our politicians do better, and stop misusing language in this consistent pattern to minimize perceived suffering of The Other - that’s unity. “Israeli families” vs. “the people of Gaza” - isn’t it self-evident, that is the wedge? Once you know to look for it, you see it used everywhere.
I don’t want unity with people who aren’t willing to make the above commitment. When demanding just minimal lip service to such an ideal from a public figure is “driving a wedge”, I think you have some serious soul searching to do.
For me it felt like the exact opposite of your take.
The people of Gaza is everyone in Gaza.
“Israeli families” feels more limited.
If you’re not aware of the subtle but pervasive linguistic technique here, you need to educate yourself. The supposed sympathetic party is always described in human-sounding terms, the supposed adversary is always dehumanized, using sterile language. And it works, it nudges those who don’t think very critically into framing their subconscious opinions that way.
Your personal reaction to one incident of such isn’t very relevant. It’s a thing and it’s nasty.
You think “people” somehow doesn’t sound human?
“Families” is absolutely more warm and human than “people” and while I see what you’re saying that “people of Gaza” could be interpreted as more inclusive than saying “Gazan families”, that would be an excessively literal reading, it is really not what’s going on here.
Again, this is just one instance of a consistent pattern among media and public figures in general. Not interested in splitting hairs with you over your personal interpretation of the one specific phrase. It’s like a dog whistle, once you know what it sounds like, you can hear it, but it will escape your notice until you learn about it.
It’s driving a wedge by calling Obama an Uncle Tom, in an effort to other an otherwise ally.
The post here, this com, not what Ms. Rachel said.
Obama is not an ally, fucking duh
Obama has never been an ally considering how many innocent families he’s responsible for bombing and has never done anything to even hint at remorse for those actions. He got a damn Nobel Peace Prize for doing so.
But IS HE an ally if he deliberately chooses to use this dehumanizing language for the victims of a brutal genocide? If he’s not allied with the victims, who the fuck is he allied with?
He was a lot less shitty than alternatives, and I do think he’s got plenty of redeeming qualities. And that’s not enough, he’s no ally if he dehumanizes suffering victims, and many of us have fucking had it making excuses for nasty shit we can’t tolerate.
Obama isn’t some good guy. Deportations under him were VERY active, for one thing. Telling him to do better isn’t driving a wedge, it’s begging the few people we have closest to our side to actually commit. But he won’t, he’ll stay who he is, just yet another member of the abusive power class. Admittedly better than most of his colleagues.
Do yourself a favor and stick to /politics.
Obama wrote this on the anniversary of the Oct 7th attacks and was referring to the families of those specific attacks.
That’s why he started with two years and published it really close to two years after the Oct 7th attacks.
It’s obvious from context. “Uncle Tom,” indeed.
Ms. Rachel didn’t do a good job of reading this.
“After two years of…” Clearly means all of the suffering occurring in the last two years.
“Clearly” not.
If it were clear we wouldn’t be having this discussion, would we?
There are smarter discussions about this in this very thread but you came here to downvote instead of reading.
Every time I go on lemmy.world I get dumber. Oh damn what a surprise the non-readers are from there too
Let me just filter that out too…
He’s not a president anymore? Why do people still call him that?
Because your crimes don’t go away after you are no longer the president. Any leaders who participate in war crimes should be persecuted . I am pretty sure you hypocrites will not forget all the terrible things Trump did one he is no longer the president
Interestingly, it’s a permanent title.
I never use it for pedophile rapist cowards though.
Just call him the Pedo President, that’s how I’ve been referring to on his truth social posts.
It’s the CRAP President loophole (coward, rapist, and Pedophile)
Seems kind of odd to me.
As far as I’m concerned, as soon as you’re out of office, you are a civilian. You took on a temporary job, and now it’s over. Like a group project or task force. You’re now mostly irrelevant unless you happen to be running again. At best you might have some insight to give.
In the UK at least, once you stop being Prime Minister you are basically completely irrelevant. Everyone ignores you and you are spoken about in the past tense, if at all.
At least, that’s my impression.
Kings and Queens are all addressed as such even hundreds of years after their deaths.
I feel like that’s even more of a reason not to follow that pattern. Those were unelected rulers for life (typically).
Technically correct, but a lot of people will respectfully address others based on their highest rank, regardless of whether or not they still hold it. That goes double for academic and political positions.
It also goes for kings if they choose to retire.
