i don't think that framing "not all citizens of a country evil due to said country's government!" is helpful. I think it's even harmful, for all that it seems like humanitarian or some shit. 'cause see, people list all those quote unquote evil countries like russia israel iran north korea and palestine (which. a choice.). but first of all, the degree of prejudice against said citizens, much less diaspora, is vastly different. North Koreans in Australia are in general in not in danger of being shot at a beach for celebrating their religious holiday.
Tbc bc there's a lot of aspects I want to cover
There's a different level of prejudice and actual harm committed against citizens, diaspora or even just. Ethnic/religious/linguistic or racial community common with the citizens of the said country. I.e. someone who is prejudiced against Israel may very well hate all Jews, regardless if they are citizens or not. Someone who is prejudiced against China - as we saw during COVID - or against Iraq - as we saw during invasion and occupation of Iraq - is likely to be prejudiced or act with prejudice against all Asians in the first case, and all Muslims or all Arabs or simply all brown people in the second case.
You know, the intent might not have been to equate; indeed, such an obvious reminder like prejudice against anyone who might have looked even vaguely Middle Eastern after 9/11 - wasn't even listed. So it's not even about how being prejudiced against some group of people is bad, period. It's about separating, nay, absolving citizens from the crimes of their government. (which, still bothers me when we specify citizens, as opposed to say nationals etc. 'Cause yeah, maybe you can't call a random Israeli citizen an evil person bc of their government, but people do call not only them (which, arguably...) but random Jewish people. Even non Jewish people, if you are not performing the Jew hatred - sorry, antisionism - in a visible and socially approvable way. In a way they don't with North Koreans or Iranians, for example).
Addition 3, in which I want to go back to my assertion that intent is to absolve citizens specifically. And I mean, intent is hard to prove! Nobody can scan the thoughts inside anybody's head, and people rarely come out and confess (if it even is a conscious move). So let's not theorise about the intention, and focus on the result... which is absolution of citizens (specifically, which is funny because if you tell me prejudice is bad among the other things because it catches completely unrelated people - I heard this argument thrown around, in particular, by westerners, on why prejudice against russians is bad because what if it catches an "ethnic" Ukrainian/another Slav who's assumed to be russian? But this particular one is a, well, requiring a large digression - yeah I can see that, but here's the focus specifically on the citizens. So people VERY related. And you can argue that unrelated people mistaken for citizens are implicit here, but no, I don't think so. The defence further goes into explaining not how prejudice is harmful but how the basis of prejudice is not valid enough. For, again, the citizens of a quote unquote evil state. Which is not actually a thing that post I'm thinking of actually said, "evil state", no, they referred to the "evil people" as in something you can't consider people as due to the action of the state they're citizen of; but I think it's fair to say that onus of responsibility is shifting from the citizens to a nebulous state, and so if people of the state cannot be evil, and it's all the state's fault, it must be the evil state; so I will continue to use it as a shorthand to indicate the shift in - casual, conversational, non-actionable responsibility among other things)
Addition 4. The post in question, and these posts frequently do, goes into the effort of humanising the citizens of the evil state. They have a pet dog they walk everyday, just like you do! They have a coffee addiction, like you! They feel anxious and bleed if cut, just like everyone else on earth! (Paraphrasing here because I don't want to quote and incite a pile up; although I don't think I have that conviction power, I have been accused of sending rabid anons towards a beloved mutual at the time. Which. Buddies please understand if I think you are wrong in some particular instance, this doesn't mean I want to to kill yourself).
Backtracking: so, humanising the citizens of the evil state on the left and on the right, and in the middle of this shit sandwich there's a reminder that they have different political views and mayhaps they're not approving of their government! Mayhaps they simply too afraid to speak out! And that's the kicker.
What does it matter to me? Or. What does it matter to a Palestinian that an Israeli citizen would never vote for Netanyahu, that they hate Smotrich, if their co-citizens are aggressively expanding into West Bank because Israel is too small to live comfortably while allowing every Jew a right of repatriation? Like. Don't get me wrong. Rabid propals aren't calling me horrible Ukr Zio for nothing. I obviously recognise Israel's right to exist (same as Palestine right to exist, same as even russia's right to exist). But rights' scope end when they infringe upon the others, you know? So yes Israel has the right to exist, and yes it sucks for new immigrants in particular, who escape often what is not simple disfranchisement but active harm, and the real estate in Israel can't cope with the demand. It sucks! But it's not Palestinians' problem. And I am talking about this in particular because I remember a dialogue here on Tumblr from Israeli defending the crawling occupation of WB with "well, we need to live somewhere" and they were not, you know, far right. They were just some guy. With the pet dog and a coffee shop they like, with hopes and dreams and bleeding when cut and dying if a ballistic missile drops on their head, like we all do. And they need to live somewhere, like you and me and everyone else needs to live somewhere, housing is a human right. Right? So you can't call them evil for the actions of their government - but can't you call them evil for the actions of their own? Because yes, many people will have many a different political opinion. What does their political opinion matter if it doesn't change the fact that Palestinians lose housing in order to Israelis gain it. It's not a thousand Netanyahus who do this, it's a thousand of Israeli citizens we can't call evil.
not a real number, btw, just a rethoric device.
And my point is not actually "Israeli citizens are evil". My point is, if Israeli citizens are not responsible for Israeli politics, who is? Why the actions of their government - and their co-citizens because someone has to live in all this newly built housing at affordable rates - are allowed to continue? What difference do different political opinions make when the results are the same?
"Ohhh but Jayhood what about Iranians or North Koreans... they also are unable to change the results regardless the political opinions..." I mean.
Addition 5? 5. I mean yeah. First of all, it's a different vibe when you are starving to death in a totalitarian state.
The vibe is different in other ways too. You're not likely to meet an Iranian that isn't very vocally and vehemently against Iranian government, whether here or in diaspora (at least, I never met). Like, there's a certain solidarity between Iranian people and Israeli people. Although these countries are very much enemies. And you're not likely to meet a North Korean, period. I mean, I guess some Ukrainians have a chance to meet a North Korean, since North Korea sends them to die in Ukraine. Preferably by killing Ukrainians. So it's not very helpful to theorise can or can you not call North Koreans evil, because at the end of the day, they are armed invaders. If they give up, you take them capture, if they try to kill you, you try not to get killed. There's not a lot other options here. If you think they're evil, or you don't think it, you follow Geneva convention either way.
sidenote: i noticed this post is getting longer and longer and more rambling. I'm kinda trying to organise my thoughts on this matter, but I'm still sick - I'm worse actually, to the point where if I didn't start taking medication immediately, my next stop was blindness and death probably. I have a persistent irritating headache. So. Sorry for the ramblings. I did have a point somewhere.
addition 6. I forgot the point I was trying to make when running a low grade fever. However! I still feel very uncomfortable with the whole "can you call them evil or not" because calling them evil isn't actually doing much, in terms of helping to mitigate the harm. A Brit calling a russian evil instead of, you know, pressing upon their government that UK needs to continue assistance to Ukraine, or hell, a Brit just not being a dick to a vulnerable Ukrainian refugee in Paris (real story) would be much more practical. That's certainly reasonable, right?
But at the same time, it's such a non issue for everyone on the list of "can we call them evil because of their government?" except Israelis and Palestinians, it's pretty... non sensical to spend more, or any, effort ensuring nobody calls a Chinese person evil because of Uyghur genocide, instead of, idk, advocating for Uyghur people who are suffering from the Chinese people. Sorry, Chinese government. Which consists of, and acts on behalf of, Chinese people. Not always to the benefit of all Chinese people at the same time, if we're talking internal politics, but if we're talking about treatment of ethnic minorities comparatively to Han Chinese... yeah.
Which also reminds me that yeah actually, you can't really separate, nor should you separate, government from the people. Except rare cases of the occupation, government will be the citizens of the state. It draws legitimacy from said citizens. Why is current American government spends so much on their nonsense MAGA propaganda? They need to stay in power via votes of their citizens. They will, of course, defranchise those who are unlikely to vote for them, whether possible; they will, of course, do away with electoral institutions if allowed. But they still need to have representative majority on their side to be allowed to do that.
Things are a bit trickier in China, Iran, or North Korea. Now, we really don't know a lot about how it's like to live in North Korea except that it sucks big time. They don't have free elections the way US or Israel does, and don't have it since the partition basically. Actually even before that; before partition, there was occupation by Japan, and before that, there was Imperial Korea. And that's actually the same for South Korea, where we see much more democratisation following the partition. To the point where SK president tried to become a dictator and failed, twarfed by other South Korean citizens.
It's obviously not going to be as simple for DPRK. But also it would matter fuck all to, say, South Koreans, if DPRK decides to launch a nuke at them. You get me?
We all remember Tiananmen square, right. Not much a Chinese citizen can do against Chinese government (altho...). But will it matter for Taiwanese if Chinese launches an invasion? (especially since I doubt they would even want to do something against their own government. They very much do want quote unquote reunification).
