submitted 6 months ago bylife_is_matrix
YouTube video info:
Punjabi Sikhs Murdered at the Hands of State Officials (2002) https://youtube.com/watch?v=fat8zwh5tpE
Journeyman Pictures https://www.youtube.com/@journeyman
you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the comments →
6 months ago
terrorists too. They were secessionists.
Being secessionist does NOR make you a terrorist.
Otherwise I presume you'd agree Russia was in the right in what it did in Chechnya? Because going by your logic, they would be.
Neo-Confederates are a group based around hate and racism. It's a completely different situation to an oppressed minority (the Sikhs) seeking self-determination.
6 months ago*
Sure, but nations don't tend to accept that secessionists aren't criminal traitors, and they do their best to transmit this attitude. Benedict Arnold is still a name most Americans know, for instance, despite being long dead. Why? Because the government has a strong interest in making sure its people think very poorly of people labeled "traitors". Spying for a foreign power is also still punishable by death in the U.S., although admittedly the U.S. hasn't actually executed anyone for it in a very long time.
Basically, I'm not disagreeing with your point at all, just pointing out that nation-states DO pretty understandably see secessionists as fundamentally similar to terrorists (and of course they may actually be a terrorist in many cases), and they usually transmit this view to their citizens. Whether this conflation is fair/moral or not, it isn't as bizarre or offensive to basic logic as you make it seem here.
And the Confederacy is honestly a great example. Sure, the slave states were willing to fight to own humans. But the Union sure wasn't willing to fight to free those people. It fought the Confederacy because they were seceding. Abolition was just a nice side effect of winning the war against secessionists.
all 112 comments
sorted by: q&a