Found the original version of the photo through reverse image search. OP is evidently a much more “cinematic” edited version, probably made using GenAI. I also found a video providing other angles of the event on Reddit, but I’m not sure how to reupload it and it doesn’t seem to work on alternate frontends.

Edit: The woman’s name is Rhiya Ahir. Here’s an interview with her with the video footage.

hell yeah comrade

15 minutes to the start of The Boondocks!

1 hour and 15 minutes to The Boondocks!

The Boondocks is a highly influential series that inspired a lot of Black art and media made after it; it’s a good introduction to a lot of Black culture; it’s a time capsule of the Seppoland of the late 2000s and early 2010s; it’s something tons of people constantly reference to this day; and it has leftist themes and references throughout. Really, if you want to engage with Black art basically, like, at all, in any meaningful capacity, even setting this specific show aside, you will have to contend with the fact that record labels, publishing houses, production companies, the likes, are still largely going to be white-owned, and the same also applies if you’re engaging in actual Native art and media like Reservation Dogs — a show about Native people and Native issues, with all-Native writers and directors and nearly all-Native cast and crew, yet still ultimately made for the profit of settler capitalists! And this is kind of the whole problem of living in a Context. The whole problem with the way our mode of production handles art. Some people would call things like The Boondocks or Reservation Dogs “selling the ropes”, though.

Now, you could boycott virtually every movie and TV show ever made in the entire continent of Abya Yala, sure, but doing so would massively blunt your ability to engage with the art of our era and the popular culture of the people around us in general, which I don’t think is very productive. Nor have Native people of Abya Yala themselves called for such a boycott: they understand that they simply aren’t in the same phase of struggle as e.g. Palestinians and Sahrawis, where such boycotts are both feasible and productive to the end of building their ability to exercise their inherent sovereignty. So in the case of the Tongva and Muscogee, I think simply raising consciousness and promoting fundraisers is the way to go.

I think that’s about all I had to say about that.

a guy that is shown as a respecible [sic]

I read this as “a guy that is shown as a receptacle” at first and thought, “Did you have to phrase it like that?”

6 hours until we start The Boondocks! Look forward to it!

The production of The Odyssey (2026) involved both filming in Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara and dumping loads of plastic props into marine protected areas of the Tyrrhenian Sea in obvious violation of the filming permit. So, displacement of Indigenous peoples? Violating agreements with foreign governments? Destroying the environment? Text about guys being super sad about doing war crimes without actually stopping doing war crimes? Plus the free space, that makes a bingo for a truly “all-American” film.

Oh! Those weren’t there when I first clicked on it. I swear they weren’t, it was just autosubs at first, I swear. Glad they’ve been added now, then!

Something I do not understand is that when Kyle Gordon released the music video for the full version of this song, he didn’t provide any subtitles, despite the joke kinda hinging on the translation.

This is from YuruYuri if anybody’s wondering. One of my favorite anime. Himawari (right) + Sakurako (left) = Himasaku, or Sakuhima. They’re a great odd couple.

Edit: Also, :her-aim-is-getting-better: at that post title

dinosorairo days

Well anyways, now that you’ve pointed out the flaws in my thinking on this specific point, and the very troubling implications of these flaws, and I can now say that I more or less agree with you… wanna look at cat videos or something?

Alright, that’s fair.

And this is one of the big issues with genocide it’s very rare that destruction of the group is the intent as opposed to a side effect of another horrid intent such as wishing to claim all the land a group owns, mass deportations etc. And even when destruction is the intent proving it is often a monumental task.

Are you able to read the minds of genociders? What you call “intent” is what I would call the material basis: their basis is e.g. wanting to claim all the land or property a group owns, which transforms into the intent to destroy the group. “Ethnic cleansers” are doing acts which will destroy the group in whole or in part and they know that their acts will do this. That means it’s their intent. This is certainly not the definition of intent used by international courts — if it was, far more genocides would be officially recognized — but as I see it, the scope of “intent” should encompass whatever one knows will happen when doing an act.

The trail of tears was one event in a genocide where the goal of destroying the native population was clearly the goal as seen by killing the buffalo to starve them etc.

The argument when sanitizing death marches is that these are “legitimate” deportations, and the people just happened to die in large numbers during them for reasons beyond the genocider’s control or intent (“but also not as many people died as you were told”). You see this line of thinking especially in Armenian genocide denial.

Hitler didn’t deport “undesirables” he had them gassed and shot.

The sanitization I’m referring to is that neo-Nazis will try to argue that Hitler “didn’t want to killllll Jews, he just wanted to depooooort them,” but because “circumstances wouldn’t let him, God forced his hand.” This is one of the entryist ways neo-Nazis will try to legitimize the Holocaust — I have personally been subjected to this line of thinking in real life by one of the worst people I had the displeasure of knowing.

Genocide is a specific legal category that needs to be proven where as ethnic cleansing is a far broader and easier label to apply. That alone is a meaningful distinction.

So the next time there’s a genocide, you’re just going to call it ethnic cleansing until the ICJ may or may not call it a genocide years after the fact?

Even just having the police round up every member of a group to deport them is a violent act that will inevitably result in unnecessary deaths, divided families, and faltered cultural transmission, all on the basis of prejudice against that group to see them forcibly removed from the country. In short, ethnic cleansing necessarily involves intent to destroy the group in whole or in part. Genocide vs ethnic cleansing is not a useful distinction unless you want to sanitize the image of, say, the Armenian genocide, the Trail of Tears, the Long Walk to Bosque Redondo, or any number of other death marches, or sanitize the image of Adolf Hitler because of things like the Madagascar Plan.

Yes, sorry, I can get sort of heated — it’s not like the Bosnian genocide is a personal thing for me, the closest connection I have to it is that I had Bosnian refugee neighbors once many years ago, but I was never very close to them — but if I feel like I’m getting played for a fool, I get upset, and then I become worse at arguing. I ended up taking shortcuts, very hypocritically, so if anybody would like to make any attacks on my character in retribution, you’ve earned the right to and I’ll just have to look down at my penny loafers and take it.^[1] I wasn’t originally going to do that appeal to the authority of Random Global South Publication, anyways, since it doesn’t strengthen my argument (as you point out, the same publication takes liberal-aligned stances elsewhere) and it is sort of exploitative anyways. On that note, I did also look into Lalit Mauritius’ position, but all I could find there was a quote that went “The loss and its perilous consequences can be measured by the bestiality of the massacres in Rwanda, in Bosnia, in India, in Algeria and in too many other parts of the world.” — “massacres,” not “genocide,” we can’t know their position — and a PDF from Marxist Group of Namibia hosted on Lalit’s site that said “From our founding in 1955, we have sought to recreate that vision of Marx, who found voices of freedom deeper and lower, identifying workers and others fighting capitalists within the U.S. while expressing solidarity with the 1956 Hungarian Revolution defying Russian state-capitalism. Solidarity without borders has been in short supply in uprisings of this generation in battles for self-determination in Bosnia and Ukraine and in revolutions against oppressive regimes propped up from abroad in Syria and Myanmar.” — which is a passage that frankly made me laugh out loud. Or maybe I rolled my eyes. Or maybe both. I can’t remember. So at least we know what Marxist Group of Namibia thinks. There’s a lot more Maoism and Trotskyism and even Hoxhaism in Africa than you may realize. The communist party in Togo is Hoxhaist, but their website’s been down for years, and they release new publications on the open Internet so rarely it’s as good as impossible to know what they think about anything unless you just live in Togo and can contact them in person.

In any case, my original purpose with that exercise was “Can I find at least three communist publications from different countries that acknowledge the Bosnian genocide?” — the aim was to establish that such publications do exist, which means that it is not a universally accepted point that the Bosnian genocide didn’t happen. I’d already pointed out Prolewiki, so there was my first. I went with Norway as my second because I can speak Norwegian very well and am familiar with a number of communist publications from Norway. Tjen Folket is an easy first pick: I’m not a Maoist, but Tjen Folket provides good analysis most of the time. Really, if I didn’t feel so pushed for time — writing the bulk of the comment in the very narrow window between the end of some very long and draining family commitment and the start of spending time with my friend — I would’ve also looked into what the other Marxist publications in Norway say, and looked into more than just two Global South parties. I looked into Lalit first and then CPMK when Lalit was unfruitful, and truthfully I didn’t even know CPMK was Maoist until I wrote that comment (there goes my credibility!), and I knew the moment that I checked their stances on Gonzalo that I was building a pretty blatant single-point-of-failure in my hasty Sutyagin house of an argument by citing two Maoist publications (plus Prolewiki).

So, being heated, being pushed for time, being drained from that family commitment, but feeling a need to respond quickly and not wait hours or days to respond: these conditions are not conductive to my best and most rigorous work!

You rightly point out that Chomsky’s analysis is usually bad and that he isn’t even really a “leftist” as such. My point in highlighting his moral bankruptcy is that anything Chomsky says, you have to keep his moral bankruptcy in mind when you read it. People can do terrible things and still be correct, yes, but the question is always “what do they want you to believe and why do they want you to believe it” as I was writing in a previous comment. In the case of him denying the Bosnian genocide, that comes from his Zionism: he said there was no Bosnian genocide because genocide was a “sacred word” to him, right? He wanted to push a narrative that the Holocaust was a uniquely evil crime the likes of which weren’t seen before or since, because this somehow makes “Israel” a “legitimate state.” So, regardless of whether any individual point Chomsky makes is correct or incorrect, this was the sort of formula he used to calculate it, which is about as precise as throwing dice. There’s also the point of how “Israel” was apparently involved in providing arms and training for Serb forces, and how if you can discredit the ICJ’s handling of Bosnia you can accuse the ICJ in turn of crying wolf in Gaza. These things could also motivate a Zionist in the present day of saying there was no Bosnian genocide, and this is on top of the Christian neo-Nazis like the Christchurch mosque shooter who call the Serb forces “le epik based Orthodox chads who removed kebab” and are thus inclined to do the same sort of historical revisionism for the Serb forces as they do towards Nazi Germany itself. This is the sort of thing I’m thinking about, and why I think it’s important to maintain that the Bosnian genocide did happen, even if it is “inconvenient” when Serbia and the Serb people have been aligned against imperialism.

You also rightly point out that the collapse of Yugoslavia was driven by reactionary bourgeois nationalism on all sides^[2]; that the label of genocide has an idealistic binarizing effect and was used to drum up support for imperialist intervention in Yugoslavia; that international law is another arm of imperialist hegemony; and that in the case of the crime of genocide proper, the definition was intentionally designed in such a way as to be nearly impossible to actually prove in practice, because certain victim groups are excluded from the definition, you have to prove intent et cetera. This was done so that imperialists don’t have to act when they’re the ones doing genocide, which is of course most of the time. This to me makes it all the more significant that the Bosnian genocide did receive recognition in international law: as a rule, when fake genocide allegations are made by imperialists, these are not pursued in court. Once the imperialists have successfully manufactured the consent for whatever intervention they wanted to do, they’ll just forget about their allegations and drop the whole act, right? Because they already got what they wanted.

I think that’s about everything I wanted to say.

Yeah, that’s completely fair, thank you for your insight.

Well said.

So, it’s exactly what I called it, a shit-where-you-eat “free market of ideas” mix of lies and truths with no distinction whatsoever between which is which. Can we really not use quality-controlled sources? Do we really have to use sources that use Odysee for their video hosting, and tell you easily refuted nonsense within the first ten paragraphs, as SWPRS does? Whatever happened to using books as sources? Anna’s Archive is still a thing, thank God. You can download an EPUB of Parenti’s To Kill A Nation there. I just did right now (yes, at 5 AM). If Parenti really does engage in genocide denial in that book like his critics say he does, is for me to find out, but I can at least trust that Parenti won’t waste my time more than I can trust whatever “wOoOobsites” CFgaussian is citing.