US, Canada, Australia, and most of Europe voted against censorship.
It seems Iran was absent, but Israel voted for it.
From 1939-1941 the UK fought Nazis while the USSR collaborated with them.
South Korea abstained, but North Korea voted for it, as did Myanmar.
Either the map is wrong, or the header is wrong, because that is not Germany.
Equal shame for all the countries that abstained. There is not a damn chance any country is genuinely unsure how they want to vote so an abstain vote in this case is just “I want to vote against but am too embarrassed to.”
Which happens to be the entire West, not a single country commonly considered “Western” voted in favour. Surprise surprise
We had a shitstorm in Poland over this, it’s extremely shameful that a country that suffered so much from nazism did voted like that, but government just responded “EU decided this”
Absolutely, the only country that might have suffered more at the hands of the Nazis is the Soviet Union. In raw numbers Poland has the 3rd largest number of deaths in WW2, in % of 1939 population it is first.
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child
Which Country is the Greatest Threat to Peace? (Gallup, 2018)
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Fun fact: The US votes against that one because it prohibits giving the death penalty to minors.
Yeah.
I mean it’s not surprising in the least, well maybe that they do go into such technicalities while killing millions of children around the world.
Hey hey, it’s not JUST about that!
It’s also because it classifies child marriage as abuse. You can still get married to or marry off your child as young as 12 in some states.
Ukrainians viewing the US only to be used by them to fight a proxy war is sad to see.
Italy beefing with Afghanistan in 2018, smh even America had moved on
Is that an Egyptian flag on France ?
Whoops, thanks, that makes more sense
This seems a bit too convenient a spread to be as simple as that. The resolution very likely was phrased in a loaded way or had some bit that was dubious. Seeing as the second red one is Ukraine and all of the west is yellow, while Russia, Iran, China, India etc are green, there very likely is context that isn’t being given to us, either intentionally or by accident.
Edit: With Russia, China, India, especially, I mean their adventures with oppression of minorities and unequality in general between cultural groups or heritages. I’m not saying the West is without fault or anything, but clearly the ones voting green are neither. They probably wouldn’t vote against their own alignments here unless it’s just word salad without meaning or responsibilities. Which is something I’m confident would lead a lot of Europe at least not accept it because it’s just a watered down version of something actually desirable.
The resolution very likely was phrased in a loaded way or had some bit that was dubious
These resolutions are publicly available on the UN website, are typically quite short, and actually quite easy to read in general. This one in particular is only 11 pages long, which includes skippable boilerplate. So this assertion is relatively easy to back up and doesn’t need to rely on assumptions, and it can actually be quite fun to read one of these resolutions; you get to feel like a proper journalist or scholar or something. So I would suggest you give it a read and seek out the bit that you find most objectionable.
Personally, based on not much more than gut feelings and historical precedent on similar distributions in votes, am a bit more uncertain than you about the reason behind this distribution. If we take the Palestine cease fire vote in the UN of December 2023, for example, you have a very similar distribution. And I know for a fact that that was an earnest, unobjectionable resolution, that was only voted down by the US because it was in their material interest to do so, and voted down by US client states (or abstention) because they’re client states. But on the other hand, we also have the obvious context of Russia using this exact language as an excuse for their illegal invasion of Ukraine, so it’s entirely conceivable that there’s a section in there that says sth like “and thus, Russia shall invade Ukraine, and we’re all cool with that”. As such, I’m on the fence, and I’ll read the resolution later. But do give it a go yourself! It’s a very satisfying exercise
Do let me know if you have the time to read it. I’ll do the same if I find some myself.
Precisely the Russian rhetoric on and around the Ukrainian war was what got me suspicious.
It could be that western countries just generally are not against nazis or neo-nazis and actively shoot down resolutions against negative things about nazis. That is not however my experience at all, or the de facto state of the law in many countries, such as Germany, that very strongly condemn any nazi associations or symbolism as unlawful. Do note that they also abstained for this one. There’s a reason for that, and while I could be entirely off base, I’m pretty sure it’s not that the western democracies just like nazis and Russia for example is just so nice and honorful to dare go against the western consensus on liking nazis.
I’ve read the resolution, and I don’t see anything in the document that I disagree with. There are some references to the Durban conference in there that I don’t fully understand, but from a cursory reading of the Wikipedia article it seems that people’s main gripe with it is its anti-zionist position (a position I vehemently agree with, Zionism is colonialism and genocide). That, to me, seems like a reasonable enough explanation as to why the US would vote against this resolution (I hope I don’t need to, but I’m happy to elaborate), and that, in turn, explains why client states voted against (or abstained).
I do acknowledge that the rhetoric closely mirrors Russia’s anti-Ukrainian propaganda, but just because a bad person misuses “nazis bad” for nefarious purposes does not make “nazis bad” any less true.
It’s a bit ironic on some level when talking about an anti-nazi resolution, but having looked into it, I’ve arrived at the position that the votes are the way they are because the US tends to vote in favor of Zionism.
Its true though no matter how you feel about it. Proven by real scientific evidence.
You can try to disprove it if you feel its wrong but you probably won’t be able to.
The problem is likely the many references to the Durban Conference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Conference_against_Racism_2001
From the article:
NGO repudiations of the NGO Forum’s Declaration
Several NGOs, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, disassociated themselves from the language of the NGO Forum’s Declaration that dealt with Israel and with Jews.[5][26] The Palestinian Solidarity Committee of South Africa reportedly distributed copies of the antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[27]
reportedly
Weasel words
Russia, India, and China don’t have a “nazi” or “neo-nazi” problem. It looks like the resolution was specifically against that, so stop "whatabout"ing this shit and acknowledge the western countries have fucked up on this vote.
This is a quote from the resolution:
contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance
It’s not specifically against nazis. It’s against things like putting minorities into labour camps, jails, etc. You know, the kind of thing a lot of the places that voted green actively do this very moment.
But let’s not let that bring our great ideals down. Surely they truly are against the very thing they do, they just can’t help themselves and need the rest of the world to make them stop. Or something?
Which one of the green countries is currently doing what?
Now do one about dictatorship and judicial independence. See how the map looks. These are just bullshit virtue signaling resolutions that have no impact on anything.
O…k
Whataboutism
I think you dont know what that means
Lol. Don’t worry, I know that, in practice, it just means “any critism of the West”
I think it’s referring to this:
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1651317?ln=en&v=pdf
… but I don’t have time to dig any deeper
OP made Crimea green. There’s definitely an agenda here And they gave away their country of origin with that little switch.
Look at the timestamp the map is after 2014
Was gonna say this, although not the part about their “country of origin” (Russian does not automatically mean gullible).
As someone from the U.S., given the history we know about the Trail of Tears and trying to erase Native Americans from existence, this isn’t surprising in the least. Sad, yes, but not surprising.
Just like all the colonial powers voting “I don’t know about this one dawg” because they know their history
Statement of the Spanish public TV RTVE in Eurovision
I’m guessing, based purely on the countries highlighted, that this is a Russian sponsored resolution.
There are plenty of more genuine resolutions you could’ve picked, but they wouldn’t have fit your narrative as well. Please don’t launder Russia’s lies just to embellish your point.
“If Russia says Nazis are bad, than Nazis must be good!”
Liberal politics is just reaction.
“If Russia says combating the glorification of Nazis are bad, they might be using too many modifiers.”
fyp
I love it, it leads to epic blunders like having an homage to a nazi in Canada because he fought the russians.
Yeah, but they just expunge that from their collective memory.
There’s at least one Nazi who fought in the SS buried in the Arlington Cemetery in DC.
It is funny because tankie thought is literal positive reaction to anything Russia and China does. Your comment shows it is also pure projection.
Not at all, Marxists are quite critical of Russia, for example, for being deeply socially reactionary, or China for engaging with trade with Israel, rather than sanctioning it. Marxists don’t accept prevailing western narratives surrounding enemies of the US Empire, which anti-Marxists try to simplify into simple reaction against the US Empire, rather than actually engage with the reasoning for supporting, say, China overall fronted by Marxists.
Not at all, Marxists are quite critical of Russia
That remains to be seen. Hasn’t happened yet. But perhaps some day?
This is deliberate ignorance. Marxists see the modern Russian Federation as a right-wing, Nationalist Capitalist country that is socially reactionary. Marxists tend to support Russia’s movements against the US Empire, which is seen as a much greater evil, and appreciate ties to countries like China that may have a positive influence on Russia reverting to Socialism, but there is much to be critical of in Russia. When you have to make up your opponent’s position, you’re deliberately lying to others, and frequently yourself as well.
How do Marxists see the USSR, China under Mao, Hoxhua, North Korea, Pol Pot, and Sendero Luminoso?
Let me guess:
USSR and Mao generally good, particularly given circumstances; Hoxhua who?; North Korea better than South Korea (and PRC even today is better than ROC); Pol Pot wasn’t a true Scotsman; and you like at least a few RATM songs.
You’re pretty close, generally. Pol Pot wasn’t a Marxist at all, though, the Khmer Rouge rejected Marxism, and his form of “communism” was deeply anti-materialist and was idealist in nature. He was also stopped by the Vietnamese. Hoxha is Hoxha. The Korea bit and USSR/PRC bits are of course oversimplified, but broadly accepted as correct.
Turns out when you refuse to open your eyes, you don’t see things. What a shock.
“it’s funny because I’ve strawmanned you”
Yes, that is exactly what you did. Repeating it does also make it funnier.
I was paraphrasing you. Given that you were the one strawmanning, that should have been obvious.
I said the resolution is bad, not the principle. You’re again misrepresenting something to further your own narrative.
So the content is the resolution is good, but its nonetheless contacted some kind of metaphysical badness unrelated to it’s content due to it being proposed by a bad guy and not a good guy.
Maybe we can get it proposed by Israel instead, then it would be a good guy presenting it because they only invade non-white countries
Russia wrote it for a reason. Think for a few seconds on why that might be.
And please stop lumping me in with the imperialist crowd. I’m anti-imperialism, but unlike some of y’all I (rhetorically) oppose all imperialism not just western imperialism.
Russia wrote it for a reason. Think for a few seconds on why that might be.
Because NATO put a bunch of Nazis in its command structure and the U.S. has backed various fascists countless times in the last 80 years, so it would put the western alliance in an embarrassing spot.
That’s like half of politics: trying to embarass your opponents into backing off various positions.
So the content is the resolution is good, but its nonetheless contacted some kind of metaphysical badness unrelated to it’s content due to it being proposed by a bad guy and not a good guy.
I’m anti-imperialism, but unlike some of y’all I (rhetorically) oppose all imperialism not just western imperialism.
“Unlike you, I believe that all lives matter, not just black ones”
I never said the content of the resolution is good. I haven’t read it. I’m just assuming it isn’t since Russia sponsored it. And even if it is actually good, the hypocrisy of the Russians sponsoring a condemnation of Nazism is notable.
Just because a country is anti-American doesn’t mean it’s anti-evil. I shouldn’t need to explain this. I don’t know why I even tried. This isn’t worth it. You’re not acting in good faith. Drawing a false equivalency between “all lives matter” and “all colonialism is bad”. Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine is bad. Israel’s genocide of Palestinians is bad. America is bad. All three things can be true at once, the world isn’t black and white. Seriously what level of Reddit-brain must you have to try to say stuff like this.
I should really just mute this whole conversation. I’m gonna look for the button.
I’m just assuming it isn’t since Russia sponsored it.
Ok, I’m just going to not read your comments and assume they’re bad because your a westerner.
the hypocrisy of the Russians sponsoring a condemnation of Nazism is notable.
What a disgusting thing to say.
You’re not acting in good faith.
Can I ask a serious question? Who is it that told you idiots that any disagreement is “bad faith”? Because you all deploy this exact phrase, word for word, any time anyone disagrees with you. It’s your favourite thought terminating cliche.
Drawing a false equivalency between “all lives matter” and “all colonialism is bad”.
It’s a completely apt equivalence, you just don’t want it to be.
Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine is bad. Israel’s genocide of Palestinians is bad. America is bad. All three things can be true at once, the world isn’t black and white. Seriously what level of Reddit-brain must you have to try to say stuff like this.
What the fuck is this complete non-sequitor? Not to mention it runs counter to your position up to know (“if Russia says Nazis bad, then Nazis good”)
the world isn’t black and white.
Your whole argument is that Russia is bad, so anything they do is bad! That’s the most black and white argument imaginable!
I should really just mute this whole conversation. I’m gonna look for the button.
Google Satre’s quote about anti-Semites
And even if it is actually good, the hypocrisy of the Russians sponsoring a condemnation of Nazism is notable.
Elaborate?
Russia is at war with nazis currently. Of course they have the most to gain from condemning nazism.
I’m guessing, based purely on the countries highlighted, that this is a Russian sponsored resolution.
Pretty funny how you saw that all of Latin America, Africa, and Asia voted against genocide, and your first reaction is to call them russian bots.
More that Ukraine voted against it and every single Western country abstained. Was I wrong though?
Removed by mod
We can’t condemn the Nazis because if we condemn the Nazis people will think we’re Nazis. When people see that we won’t condemn the Nazis, that’s how they’ll know we aren’t Nazis.
Lol stay stupid patriot
Description mentions Germany but it’s not highlighted like the others?
So…. Anyone want to sponsor me for a work visa outside the USA? This ship is sinking and I’m surrounded by racist assholes apparently, and I want out!! Seriously….
Getting a TEFL/TESOL certification is probably easiest way to go about it. Most countries require a bachelor’s degree to be there on a work visa outside of some circumstances. It still wont be “easy” but itll be easier than trying to sell a skillset thats redundant in a EFL country. Beware of scams and look for accreditation
Love these colonizer index maps
Canada abstained? What the fuck, hosers?
Edit: wait all/most of Europe as well? WTF
As a Canadian, Canada has way more Nazis than people realize and the broader government tends pretend we don’t have a Nazi problem while certain politicians are full on embracing them (just look at Danielle Smith). It’s not as bad as in the US, but that’s a really low bar and isn’t exactly praiseworthy.
It’s amazing how Canada giving a standing ovation to a literal SS member has been so quickly memory holed.
deleted by creator
I’ve always preferred for people like this to self-identify so we know who they are. Creating a silence where hatred lives has never struck me as a good approach, but I get the argument that allowing hate speech unchecked can cause people to be swayed. On the other hand, it’s always terrific to see people running for office or otherwise aspiring to positions of power being thwarted by the classic surfacing of a picture of them showing their true colors…
Canada has a large diaspora of Ukrainian Nazi sympathizers. They famously gave a Ukrainian Nazi a standing ovation in parliament.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/canada-speaker-apologizes-ukraine-nazi-veteran-honored-rcna117125
lmao I’m jealous at how easy the Russian propagandists have it sometimes
Australia as well… I guess it’s white peoples’ fault after all.
Removed by mod
This is all the more egregious now when Russia seeks to use a false accusation of Nazism to try to justify its unconscionable ongoing brutality against the people of Ukraine.
- Reuters, 2014: Leaked audio reveals embarrassing U.S. exchange on Ukraine, EU
- Leaked recording between Nuland and Pyatt: audio | transcript
- Counterpunch, 2014: US Imperialism and the Ukraine Coup
- BBC, 2014: Ukraine underplays role of far right in conflict
- Human Rights Watch, 2014: Ukraine: Unguided Rockets Killing Civilians
- Consortium News, 2015: The Mess That Nuland Made Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland engineered Ukraine’s regime change without weighing the likely consequences.
- The Hill, 2017: The reality of neo-Nazis in Ukraine is far from Kremlin propaganda
- The Guardian, 2017: ‘I want to bring up a warrior’: Ukraine’s far-right children’s camp – video
- WaPo, 2018: The war in Ukraine is more devastating than you know
- Reuters, 2018: Ukraine’s neo-Nazi problem
- The Nation, 2019: Neo-Nazis and the Far Right Are On the March in Ukraine
- openDemocracy, 2019: Why Ukraine’s new language law will have long-term consequences
- Al Jazeera, 2022: Why did Ukraine suspend 11 ‘pro-Russia’ parties?
- Jacobin, 2022: A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War
- Consortium News, 2023: The West’s Sabotage of Peace in Ukraine Former Israeli Prime Minister Bennett’s recent comments about getting his mediation efforts squashed in the early days of the war adds more to the growing pile of evidence that Western powers are intent on regime change in Russia.
- NYT, 2024: U.N. Court to Rule on Whether Ukraine Committed Genocide
- History of Fascism in Ukraine: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV
and I’m sure that from, say, 1991 to 2021, there were a lot of pictures of fascists, nazis, and other far-right riff-raff taken in Russia.
You will notice that all of these stories are after 2014 though. The fascist movements was formed quite rapidly, but it was still in response to aggression by the Russian government and military, pardon, the Donetsk “miners and tractor drivers”. These new fascists (Azov batallion a prime example ) were/are made up of Russian speakers from eastern Ukraine!! Not the stereotypical russophobes from lviv.
Gee I wonder what actions of the Russian military or their “polite people” in eastern Ukraine might have led to this??
The Banderite fascists didn’t suddenly spring into existence at the moment of their 2014 coup. They go all the way back to the 1930s.
ukrainian nationalism (including its heinous forms) goes at least as far back as the russian revolution/civil war, and ideologically originated in late 19th century. but again, it was developed in response to the no less vicious russian imperialism
deleted by creator
What? You mean there is not a single country without Nazis? Oh the heavens. Nazi groups in Ukraine are still an issue (as they are everywhere) but maybe something happened that was more important. Don’t know what though.
Usa coup, 2014
Damn, all of south america, africa, and asia are russian bots now. /s
deleted by creator
Because it’s a Russian sponsored resolution.
Because they’re US puppets
Got a source for that?
Nope, but it’s pretty obvious if Ukraine was one of the only two countries to vote against.
And another guy, who’s actually read it, pointed out that it equates tearing down soviet monuments with Nazism.
It’s funny because it’s the same map as all the “Free world vs unfree world” maps
Always the same map.
Having a metropolis is not exempt from being under oppression.
Would you show pictures of skyscrapers in the middle east to compare its human rights?
The accusation wasn’t human rights abuses, the accusation was genocide.
The propaganda trick here is to throw out a henious story, completely fail to back it up with evidence, then gradually retreat to a far less damning accusation that’s essentially impossible to disprove. The smear sticks with most people and you then see how much of the lie you can get away with depending on the crowd.
Under oppression of what? Of CIA-backed terrorist attacks being suppressed? Oh the huge manatee.
