commajade:

commajade:

pls read nodutdol’s thread on the no gun ri massacre

yesterday was the anniversary of the no gun ri massacre. remember that south korea is a hypermilitarized hypercapitalist neocolony of the U.S. empire that was built on the blood of our people and continues to kill korean people today.

(via anarchy-is-organization)

icedsodapop:

a-forger-and-a-point-man:

Full story here

The Congolese people as well:

Oppenheimer film: These were the atrocities afflicted on Africans in search of uranium for the nuclear bomb

Before watching “Oppenheimer”, there is a dark history behind the creation of the nuclear bomb that you should know about.

iol.co.za

Most of the uranium used to build the atomic bombs were mined in Shinkolobwe in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Congolese people had to work in the uranium mines without protection. Exposure to uraniun could result in negative health impacts such as: renal failure, decreased bone formation, cancer, issues with fertility etc. The labor of the Congolese people for the Manhatten Project were kept secret until recently, and still no research has been conducted on the long-term consequences of uranium intake in the people at the extraction site in the Congo.

And this is why the narrative surrounding Oppenheimer (the man himself and the film) makes me angry. The atomic bombs are a product of colonialism. It was a bomb funded by a settler colony (USA), it’s materials are dug from a colony (DRC) by colonized people (the Congolese) and tested on colonized lands (Hispanic village of Tularosa and Mescalero Apache Reservation). But, the narrative that always gets perpetuated is of the tragedy of a brillant White man and his deadly creation, the many Black and Brown people who became collateral damage of the creation are always erased. And it says A LOT about whose labor and pain matters.

(via foobered)

musingsdeme:

So I’m a historian who works particularly on the relationship between trauma, national memory, and childhood.  The focus of my research is not the Holocaust, but it’s a subject upon which I’ve taught, mused, written, and examined.  A few years ago, I was a TA in a class on the Holocaust (cross listed in the History Department and the Department of Judaic Studies) at a US University (a pretty prestigious one). Most of the course focused on the realities of the Holocaust:  what happened?  how?  why? Now because of my areas of expertise/interest, I was invited to give a lecture to the entire class as opposed to teaching my particular subset of students each week.  The subject of the lecture?  The Holocaust in US education and children’s/YA literature. 

The thing that I found most distressing about this lecture?  The fact that only about nine state in the US require that students learn about the Holocaust in classrooms.  Among those only a few require it as a part of history or social studies classes, the rest require it as part of language arts.  And, the way that students actually learn about this subject is determined at the discretion of the school district, which means that, as long as students meet the general requirements of standardized tests, they don’t have to learn particular details.  So, let that sink in.  Even more distressing?  The states that “require” students to learn about the Holocaust, have only done so since (at the earliest) the 1980s, and far more likely the 1990s and 2000s.  This means that there is an entire generation whose knowledge of the Holocaust comes from popular media and triumphant narratives about US involvement in WWII:  these narratives are hugely false, and what I call the “Punching Hitler” story after the iconic image of Captain America socking Hitler in the jaw.  In the US the general shared narrative about WWII is that the US went over the Europe, lost a lot of boys, but killed Hitler, won the war, and saved the Jews.  o__O  That’s…not what happened.  

In a class of 200 students, only about 10 percent knew anything about how the Holocaust happened.  They didn’t know about the groups that were targeted, the way that anti-semitism and opportunistic nationalist politics helped make it happen, they didn’t know about complicity or bystandardism.  They knew nothing.  They didn’t know that US officials were aware of what was happening and refused to get involved in the war.  They didn’t understand that there was concurrent anti-semitism and racism in the US.  They were taught none of these things.  And that is actually terrifying, not only because it means that these kids have no idea about the past, but because they can’t see the giant flashing warning signs in our current socio-political world.  

(via voidsanger)

elektraking:

ALT

(via comrade-is-gender-neutral)

marxistbarbie:

yatsbr:

battlships:

marxistbarbie:

ERASE the idea that America saved lives by dropping two atomic bombs on Japan from your minds. ERASE the idea that it was anything more than a political move to scare Russia and also to satiate US curiosity as to the true ability of nuclear weapons. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not military bases. They were heavily populated civilian cities chosen precisely bc the U.S. wanted to see how many people an atomic bomb could kill in one go. Japan was on the verge of surrendering, the U.S. literally wanted to test out their nuclear weapons on people that they deemed disposable. That is it. If those bombs were dropped by any nation other than the US veryone involved would have been tried as war criminals.

Also erase the idea that America was the hero of WWII and got into the war because they wanted so save people. They couldn’t have cared less about the victims of the Holocaust, proven by the fact that they turned away so many shiploads of refugees that went on to die at the hands of Nazis.

“the us wanted to see how many people an atomic bomb could kill in one go” oh really? Source your bullshit, asshole

i left out sources bc i figured most tumblr users know how to use google but ok 

- Report produced by the U.S Strategic Bombing Group (employed by Truman) to survey the air attacks on Japan concluded that: 

“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” - page 52-56 

- Dwight Eisenhower future president and then Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces also said:

“I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to [the then Secretary of War] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.” - page 380

- Admiral William Leahy, one of the highest ranking officials in the US army during WW2 wrote of the usage of the bombs:

“It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. […] My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.” - page 441

- General Douglas McArthur, another high ranking US official in the war:

“[When asked about his opinion on bombing Japan] He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.” - page 70-71

- On September 9, 1945 Admiral William F. Halsey commander of the Third Fleet publicly quoted as saying:

“The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment… . It was a mistake to ever drop it… . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it… . It killed a lot of Japs.” - online source

- The US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, speaking to President Truman:

“I was a little fearful that before we could get ready the Air Force might have Japan so thoroughly bombed out that the new weapon [the atomic bomb] would not have a fair background to show its strength.” - diary of Henry Stimson which can be found online here 

- Even those deploying the bombs questioned the decision to drop them on civilian cities:

“I thought that if we were going to drop the atomic bomb, drop it on the outskirts–say in Tokyo Bay–so that the effects would not be as devastating to the city and the people. I made this suggestion over the phone between the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and I was told to go ahead with our targets.” - online source

- Lewis Strauss Assistant to the Navy Secretary James Forrestal on the locations of the bombings:

“I remember suggesting […] a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood… I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest… would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. […] Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation.” - page 145

So to recap: 

1. A lot of American generals were against using the bomb as they felt it served an empty purpose.
2. Those who agreed with its usage completely disagreed with dropping them on cities.
3. Truman went ahead and had them detonated in two highly populated civilian cities anyway. Two cities that had remained mostly untouched by regular bombings throughout the war precisely bc of their lack of value to the Japanese war effort.  

Draw your own conclusions. 

Gonna be reblogging these posts a lot now that Oppenheimer is out and racist Americans are on their bullshit

(via leftistcrap)

notchainedtotrauma:

meat-wentz:

meat-wentz:

okay okay so like i don’t wanna kill the party but i just saw an instagram shop selling a shirt that says now i am become death the destroyer of worlds in barbie font and i just sigh i just like i get the novelty of barbie and oppenheimer weekend but i have got to stress the bomb changed the entire world forever and wiped out over a quarter of a million people i think maybe we gotta kinda take a step back here when we start selling it as if it’s fun hot girl summer fodder

before you start babygirling oppenheimer just know that from what i’ve heard the film does not address downwinders, does not have a singular japanese person in it, and exploited our museums by claiming photos on loan for personal use (meaning they did not have to pay a penny to use them in the film despite being a multi-million dollar production).

I’m going to say it, even though it probably has been said. The bomb was tested in New Mexico. Nary a New Mexican has been consulted or the years long environmental consequences that weren’t that much lesser than Japan acknowledged, and people that suffered from the deathly rippling of the bombings are still alive.

https://www.axios.com/2023/07/20/j-r-oppenheimer-movie-new-mexico-hispanics

Some of the facts detailed in the article make the cinematic omission unforgivable. 

(via foobered)

actual-cannibal-arthur-lester:

nobrashfestivity:

Guerrilla Girls 1991

[Image ID: a poster reading:

“Q. What’s the difference between a prisoner of war and a homeless person?

A. Under the Geneva Convention, a prisoner of war is entitled to food, shelter and medical care.”

Between the question and answer is a black and white photo of a police officer disturbing a homeless person with a baton. The homeless person is lying down on a bench.

The bottom of the poster reads “a public message from Guerrilla Girls - 532 LaGuardia PI. #237, NY 10012”. /End ID]

161afa1312acab:

ALT

This Memorial Day remember… Police have killed more Americans in the last 10 years than all the troops who have died in wars since 9/11.

unitedeyebrow:

ruisa-faa:

postirony:

right-2-rebel:

gentle reminder that south korea is occupied korea

US military bases are vectors of violence against the indigenous population as both infrastructure of occupation and a warehouse for violent men.

This is especially true in the case of sexual violence against women and LGBT people.

The US military has never been and will never be “diverse” and “inclusive” in any way shape or form.

All its bases need to be closed.

This is absolutely true. One of the things that kept coming up when I talked to LGBT+ people in Korea that did sex work or were simply cruising and got abused by the US troops stationed there, was that there was no recourse from the Korean police or the US military disciplinary arms. Further, Republic of Korea has a long history of leftist actions being put down by violent dictators that either got outright support or blessings from US military stationed in Korea (Gwangju Resistance is the biggest one). We cannot have justice, be it economic, gender, or LGBT+, with the US military stationed in Korea.

As a quick aside, this is also true for Japan.

we need the USA out of Northeast Asia, and we need it out now.

It’s more sick to learn that inside those camps, it’s build to accommodate americans soldiers. This thread reports how it’s inside via illustrations since it’s illegal to take pictures

Can confirm that large swathes of Korean land that could otherwise be used to alleviate the housing crisis in a country with very limited real estate are instead used for occupied forces. And they do build American-style malls full of food courts and overpriced novelties and luxury stores entirely to serve the needs of those occupied forces, no locals allowed. We can actually be court martialed for providing certain luxuries that are provided to us for cheap that are costly in local supermarkets, namely beef and cheese. This isn’t even considering the environmental impacts of constantly providing our preferred food where it’s neither made nor grown. And nobody wants to have this conversation, but part of the reason we’re in this state is because we have campaigned and propagandized against North Korea for so long that any attempt to disentangle the US military from SK will be crushed. Removing military influence from SK requires us to reconcile with the way we view the entire Korean peninsula.

(via voidsanger)

afloweroutofstone:

How Many More Governments Will American-Trained Soldiers Overthrow?

There have been at least seven coups led by soldiers who trained with Americans forces in Africa in recent years and the security situation

Rolling Stone

For decades, U.S.-trained officers —from Haiti’s Philippe Biamby and Romeo Vasquez of Honduras to Egypt’s Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi and Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan— have overthrown U.S.-allied governments all over the world. Rarely, however, have so many coups been so concentrated in a region over such a short period of time.   

Last fall, after returning from a trip, alongside other top State Department and Pentagon officials to the Sahelian states of Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger, Ambassador Victoria Nuland was upbeat. “We went to the region in force. We were looking, in particular, at how the U.S. strategy towards the Sahel is working. This is a strategy that we put in place about a year ago to try to bring more coherence to our efforts to support increased security,” she said during an October conference call with reporters.

After Rolling Stone pointed out that U.S.-trained military officers had conducted seven coups in these same countries—Burkina Faso, three times; Mali, three times; and Mauritania, one time—since 2008, Nuland was less sanguine. “Nick, that was a pretty loaded comment that you made,” she replied. “Some folks involved in these coups have received some U.S. training, but far from all of them.”

(via ecology-of-the-inhuman)