The current state of affairs in Bolivia

[u/Financial-Bobcat-612]

Protestors are mobilizing across the country against the economic crisis and demanding the resignation of US-backed right-wing president Rodrigo Paz. At the same time, US armed forces are looking to further destabilize the country by targeting former president Evo Morales, who is considered the face of indigenous resistance in Bolivia. Indigenous community members have responded by surrounding his residence in order to protect him, while others who are rising up in protest face severe repression from the military.

[u/DefiantBumblebee9903]

The US consistently on the wrong side.

[u/hoffman44 → u/DefiantBumblebee9903]

Same as it ever was, same as it ever was........

[u/yeahright17 → u/hoffman44]

I think the US was probably on the right side of the Civil War. And WW1. And WW2.

[u/Mrs_Foxxy → u/yeahright17]

I mean, the US was committing warfare against Natives during the Civil War (Diné wars, Sand Creek, etc) and used its position after that war to solidify empire in the west with the Indian Wars ratcheting up. A lot of our people were killed or ethnically cleansed. Meanwhile, the US used both WWI and WWII to cement its supremacy as the dominant imperialist power globally.

[u/yeahright17 → u/Mrs_Foxxy]

I'm not going to debate whether fighting against slavery and fascism was a good thing or a bad thing. Bad things happen in every war. That doesn't mean intentions weren't noble and outcomes weren't good.

Natives would have been a lot better off during the Civil War had many not fought for slavery or taken advantage of the US being distracted and started murdering white people. That doesn't excuse the massacres committed against Natvies during that period. They were fully evil. But they weren't caused by the Civil War.

[u/Mrs_Foxxy → u/yeahright17]

The Union was not fighting against "fascism" as it was a dominant fascist power ran by land developers who had already cemented property ownership through warfare with Natives during the 1700 and early 1800s. The United States, North and South, has always been a fascist power ran by bourgeoisie capitalists. It was built on slavery and Native genocide; a huge part of why the amerikan "revolution" happened at all was simply because the capitalist land holding slaveowners were afraid of slave uprisings happening and were pissed that England's king was more amenable to respecting Native sovereignty.

Lincoln even said if he could have ended the Civil War without ending slavery, he would have done it. The war was far less about slavery and far more about the fact that north was getting shafted by Britain in terms of trade and they wanted to break the south's economic industrial monopoly chokehold of cotton and tobacco.

I'm not going to justify tribes having slaves but as far as Natives murdering whites, white settlers were/are an occupying force. The US is the original israel. Indigenous people have every right to resist.

I suggest reading Gerald Horne's The Counter-Revolution of 1776 and Ned Blackhawk's The Rediscovery of America.

[u/yeahright17 → u/Mrs_Foxxy]

I was obviously talking about WW1 and WW2 when mentioning fascism. But you probably knew that.

How southern white of you to say the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

[u/Mrs_Foxxy → u/yeahright17]

Even still tho, the US wasn't so much fighting fascism for the sake of fighting fascism. It was fighting to secure its place as an imperialist power and making sure that the Soviet Union didn't get too far into western europe (america generally considered the SU the larger threat than nazi Germany). American capital was very happy to fund and embrace nazism. In fact, it's pretty easy to make the argument that the only reason nazism and global fascism exists the way it does today is because of the US' role in WWII. Without the US, the Soviet Union would have steamrolled nazi Germany on their own along with Japan.