KiaKaha [he/him]

  • 9 Posts
  • 38 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 26th, 2020

help-circle













  • Here’s a take I saw on Folau that made me pause for a bit.

    Missing from the public discourse is the background of how evangelical Christianity swept the Pacific Islands. This the story of colonialism and Christian missionaries and Captain Cook; of the destruction of local religions and languages.

    It is the story of how all over the world, cultures that didn’t have laws or customs against homosexuality or gender fluidity could become so puritanical that they turned against their own LGBTIQ brethren in favour of the gospel as preached by their colonisers; only for the colonisers to then finally soften their own stances against homosexuality and decide that homophobia was yet another moral failing of the colonised. *

    I still don’t like him, but there’s a grain of truth in it.





  • Graeber has you covered.

    It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what’s going on here. These “heroes” are purely reactionary, in the literal sense. They have no projects of their own, at least not in their role as heroes: as Clark Kent, Superman may be constantly trying, and failing, to get into Lois Lane’s pants, but as Superman, he is purely reactive. In fact, superheroes seem almost utterly lacking in imagination: like Bruce Wayne, who with all the money in the world can’t seem to think of anything to do with it other than to indulge in the occasional act of charity; it never seems to occur to Superman that he could easily carve free magic cities out of mountains.

    Almost never do superheroes make, create, or build anything. The villains, in contrast, are endlessly creative. They are full of plans and projects and ideas. Clearly, we are supposed to first, without consciously realizing it, identify with the villains. After all, they’re having all the fun. Then of course we feel guilty for it, re-identify with the hero, and have even more fun watching the superego clubbing the errant Id back into submission.



  • Parenti has a short primer.

    Maidan put pro-west, anti-Russian fash sympathisers in charge. The population of Crimea, being ethnically and historically Russian, said ‘fuck this’ and left, then joined Russia.

    There was various degrees of US support to Maidan and Russian support to Crimean independence.

    Geopolitically, the annexation of Crimea was a response to the west’s pulling of Ukraine into its orbit. The Russian preference would have been to keep a Ukrainian govt sympathetic to Russia. But when that proved impossible, taking only the pro-Russian portion of Ukraine was the next best choice.

    My understanding is that, historically, Crimea was Russian, and was transferred to Ukraine as a gift during the USSR era.