I wonder what Putin meant to communicate by using the word "pogrom". I took that word choice as an attempt to signal sympathy with BLM (while also perhaps attempting to signal sympathy with white supremacists by decrying the unrest). Just another politician speaking out of both sides of his mouth in a lame attempt to defend his treatment of Navalny etc. I wonder why didn't he just label Navalny "a nazi"? Or was Matt Stoller right the other day when he called Puting "a nazi"??
By pogroms I think he probably meant the chaos and the unrest and property destruction that took place during the national protests and riots that summer.
Ah, ok. In my experience, or at least in Wikipedia's, "A pogrom is a violent riot aimed at the massacre or expulsion of an ethnic or religious group, particularly one aimed at Jews.", so I read Putin as attempting to express (or feign) sympathy with blacks.
he was making this point regarding mass lawlessness and agitation against the state of blm and making the explicit connection to russia’s opposition movement, saying it was just as bad as blm. that’s my read of it.
Your take is fascinating as always. However, I think you are misunderstanding the political forces which have been propelling BLM. Check out the identity of the biggest funders of the BLM organisation, and some of the reporting on the role of agents provocateurs in the violence. I saw an interesting and persuasive presentation on the issue of agents provocateurs on the news programme ‘The Real News’ a while back, in particular. If the modes of operation set out in Stoner’s book on the cultural Cold War are any guide- as Ben Norton of the Greyzone clearly believes they are- it looks as though BLM may not be just grass roots at all, but being used as a political tool by the usual suspects for a new variation of their usual aims. It has been very striking to me how the ‘blue’ press has been silent about both the extent and incidence of violence against persons and property. By incidence I mean who suffered the losses, injuries, and deaths, in terms of economic and social groups. If we could see who the violence is hurting we could get a different perspective on who might oppose this type of thing and why. Rep Burgess has referenced this type of violence as a hindrance to blacks being able to work their way up into a decent middle class income and lifestyle. A modest aim, which many who have grown up in the prosperous middle classes might scorn, but which I do not scorn because I know how much it looks like an unattainable dream to much of the world’s population. If we look at the impact of BLM- I think it worth asking whose interests it is really serving. The big donors’ interests? Or those of the grass roots supporters?
Yasha a question: Is it your impression that Putin is pursuing domestic policies intended to destroy routes out of poverty and increase the proportion of wealth controlled by the top 1%? When he spoke about being opposed to BLM do you interpret that as being anti the chaos or anti anti racism? I wasn’t clear which you were assuming in your article. My understanding is that the chaos aspect has disproportionately impacted adversely on poor and minority communities, including trashing livelihoods painfully built up over decades. It is true that we lack proper statistics to know for certain the impacts, but that in itself could be telling, as mainstream press reflects more the interests of wealth and ‘power’ than of those poorer communities, does it not?
Fair enough but - I think most of us watching from a distance- like Putin- would think of it as what we see in the news - which looks to me like a mix of grass roots co opted and pushed along etc by some actors with quite different motivations, including violent agents provocateurs. KKK used to attack small businesses owned by blacks just to keep them down. Today the same offensive purposes can be achieved with impunity by dressing in black and pretending to be BLM supporter. Does that sound far fetched?
Thanks for the rec. Will def pick up Omar’s book up and give it a read. Her American Exceptionalism doesn’t surprise me. Very difficult to find any immigrant that doesn’t believe in the One True Faith, whether they lib or right.
I wonder what Putin meant to communicate by using the word "pogrom". I took that word choice as an attempt to signal sympathy with BLM (while also perhaps attempting to signal sympathy with white supremacists by decrying the unrest). Just another politician speaking out of both sides of his mouth in a lame attempt to defend his treatment of Navalny etc. I wonder why didn't he just label Navalny "a nazi"? Or was Matt Stoller right the other day when he called Puting "a nazi"??
By pogroms I think he probably meant the chaos and the unrest and property destruction that took place during the national protests and riots that summer.
Ah, ok. In my experience, or at least in Wikipedia's, "A pogrom is a violent riot aimed at the massacre or expulsion of an ethnic or religious group, particularly one aimed at Jews.", so I read Putin as attempting to express (or feign) sympathy with blacks.
he was making this point regarding mass lawlessness and agitation against the state of blm and making the explicit connection to russia’s opposition movement, saying it was just as bad as blm. that’s my read of it.
Hi Yasha,
Your take is fascinating as always. However, I think you are misunderstanding the political forces which have been propelling BLM. Check out the identity of the biggest funders of the BLM organisation, and some of the reporting on the role of agents provocateurs in the violence. I saw an interesting and persuasive presentation on the issue of agents provocateurs on the news programme ‘The Real News’ a while back, in particular. If the modes of operation set out in Stoner’s book on the cultural Cold War are any guide- as Ben Norton of the Greyzone clearly believes they are- it looks as though BLM may not be just grass roots at all, but being used as a political tool by the usual suspects for a new variation of their usual aims. It has been very striking to me how the ‘blue’ press has been silent about both the extent and incidence of violence against persons and property. By incidence I mean who suffered the losses, injuries, and deaths, in terms of economic and social groups. If we could see who the violence is hurting we could get a different perspective on who might oppose this type of thing and why. Rep Burgess has referenced this type of violence as a hindrance to blacks being able to work their way up into a decent middle class income and lifestyle. A modest aim, which many who have grown up in the prosperous middle classes might scorn, but which I do not scorn because I know how much it looks like an unattainable dream to much of the world’s population. If we look at the impact of BLM- I think it worth asking whose interests it is really serving. The big donors’ interests? Or those of the grass roots supporters?
I use BLM to refer to the grassroots movements not the NGO complex that rose up and branded it. This is not NGO driven: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZPeD2miyF8
Yasha a question: Is it your impression that Putin is pursuing domestic policies intended to destroy routes out of poverty and increase the proportion of wealth controlled by the top 1%? When he spoke about being opposed to BLM do you interpret that as being anti the chaos or anti anti racism? I wasn’t clear which you were assuming in your article. My understanding is that the chaos aspect has disproportionately impacted adversely on poor and minority communities, including trashing livelihoods painfully built up over decades. It is true that we lack proper statistics to know for certain the impacts, but that in itself could be telling, as mainstream press reflects more the interests of wealth and ‘power’ than of those poorer communities, does it not?
Fair enough but - I think most of us watching from a distance- like Putin- would think of it as what we see in the news - which looks to me like a mix of grass roots co opted and pushed along etc by some actors with quite different motivations, including violent agents provocateurs. KKK used to attack small businesses owned by blacks just to keep them down. Today the same offensive purposes can be achieved with impunity by dressing in black and pretending to be BLM supporter. Does that sound far fetched?
Thanks for the rec. Will def pick up Omar’s book up and give it a read. Her American Exceptionalism doesn’t surprise me. Very difficult to find any immigrant that doesn’t believe in the One True Faith, whether they lib or right.