I don't think I could disagree more with this! IMO the biggest failure of the USSR was forcing a nationalist Russification over its borders, rather than acting as a true Union of multiple Republics
Calling the Cheka a "terrorist police force" is an interesting choice of words. I'm obviously no fan of the Cheka but what is it about them that's singularly "terrorist"? Usually that kind of wording is reserved for non-state actors
Torn between being pleasantly surprised that he's recognizing the Armenian genocide at all, and suspecting that he's only doing it to further his trend of demonizing the Ottoman Empire for Islamophobia purposes
Low bar but glad that he's accurately saying that the British and French dividing up the former Ottoman Empire arbitrarily is a primary source of a lot of the present-day violence in the Middle East. I was honestly a little worried he would blame most of it on Islam
Suggesting now that Jewish eyewitnesses to the Ukrainian famine are more important because they "cannot be accused of Ukrainian bias"... that strikes me as a little fucked up. It's a bit adjacent to dual-loyalty stuff, isn't it? Kind of arguing that Jewish Ukrainians weren't real Ukrainians? I don't think you should talk about them like that man.
oh fuck off. im not sorry you didn't get your theocratic ethnostate, and you shouldn't be whining about it in an intro history course. get over yourself.
it's so funny that he's talking about like, extremely basic progressive politics from 50 years ago by calling it "awkward" and "shocking" compared to (implicitly better) Christian values. like dude this is just kind of the foundation of modern liberal ideology. this is the default for most of your students. even the centrist lib students would read this and think you sound like a 1950s reactionary.
oh shut the fuck up you know full well colonization was explicitly supported by the Catholic church. can't even let people decolonize themselves with giving all the credit to colonialists. fuck sakes
is that what happened, sir? the terrorists just popped up out of nowhere and the European troops started fighting them? no reasons behind those terrorists' existence?
very interesting choice of examples here. nothing to say about the Ulster volunteers, the Italian neofascists, the Falangist terrorists against Spanish democratization, or Israeli paramilitaries like Kach? it seems like it's only terrorism if done by a leftist or a Muslim.
Maybe this is just my anarchist sensitivities but I really don't think the ideology of ISIS is that concerned with the legitimacy of the Westphalian system. I mean for one the Muslim world was never even party to the Peace of Westphalia. Mostly though I think they're more concerned with the religious fundamentalism than the legitimacy of this or that philosophy of international law. If they're concerned with any system of nation-states it would be the American Empire, which *also* pretty much rejects the Westphalian system.
Classic rhetorical trick of listing a single event (Theo van Gogh's murder) and implying (but not saying outright) that this is evident of some greater trend.
Also yeah sure let's just say there were Africans and Arabs rioting but give no explanation. I'm sure it was just because that's what Africans and Arabs do; and not a response to racism, poverty, and the death of two teenagers in a police chase.
@nyatalie the funny thing is I've actually been getting very good marks because he tells the class to only focus on the assigned textbook so you can just regurgitate his own shitty opinions back at him