She finds the whole idea absurd. To Prof Marci Shore, the notion that the Guardian, or anyone else, should want to interview her about the future of the US is ridiculous. She’s an academic specialising in the history and culture of eastern Europe and describes herself as a “Slavicist”, yet here she is, suddenly besieged by international journalists keen to ask about the country in which she insists she has no expertise: her own. “It’s kind of baffling,” she says.
In fact, the explanation is simple enough. Last month, Shore, together with her husband and fellow scholar of European history, Timothy Snyder, and the academic Jason Stanley, made news around the world when they announced that they were moving from Yale University in the US to the University of Toronto in Canada. It was not the move itself so much as their motive that garnered attention. As the headline of a short video op-ed the trio made for the New York Times put it, “We Study Fascism, and We’re Leaving the US”.
Starkly, Shore invoked the ultimate warning from history. “The lesson of 1933 is: you get out sooner rather than later.” She seemed to be saying that what had happened then, in Germany, could happen now, in Donald Trump’s America – and that anyone tempted to accuse her of hyperbole or alarmism was making a mistake. “My colleagues and friends, they were walking around and saying, ‘We have checks and balances. So let’s inhale, checks and balances, exhale, checks and balances.’ I thought, my God, we’re like people on the Titanic saying, ‘Our ship can’t sink. We’ve got the best ship. We’ve got the strongest ship. We’ve got the biggest ship.’ And what you know as a historian is that there is no such thing as a ship that can’t sink.”
She has children. It’s interesting that if you thought a full on dictators/ death camp regime was coming (as she does) you would either abandon your children or put them in harm’s way, but judging other people for making a different choice does not make you seem all that righteous.
No one else in America has kids huh? Her kids are the only ones that matter in this equation. Get the fuck out of here with that GOP “but think of the children” logic
Parents have a particular attachment to the safety of their own children.
That’s not a political statement, it’s just the reality of human nature. It’s also usually seen as ethical.
I notice you not saying you have kids.
Let me know in a few years when you understand, because all your “fuck saving your own kids from the fascists, you should be in the street not on the news living out history lessons” bravado is a real tell for “I have absolutely no idea what it’s like to have kids”.
Your extreme lack of empathy and insistence on everyone doing it your way makes me surprised you aren’t a conservative yourself.
I have two kids but that doesn’t make any difference. You don’t need to have kids to understand that running away from fascists doesn’t work. Being a parent doesn’t change any of the facts on the ground. If anything it makes adopting my point of view more urgent.
You’re making an emotional appeal to our natural instinct for survival. Well, history tells us that the longer we wait and the fewer of us stand and fight the harder it will be to win so how does your admonition to empathize with this woman help increase the chance that my kids will survive? The answer is that it doesn’t. Every person that leaves makes it that much more likely that I’ll have to be one of the people to die fighting fascism in America or that my kids will be casualties in that war. Instead of asking me to empathize with her why aren’t you asking her to empathize with the people who can’t leave? Those are the people I have empathy for. Not some privileged academic who didn’t even stick around long enough to hold up a sign at a protest.
You’re jumping through an awful lot of hoops to try and paint obviously cowardly behavior as something else. My question is why? I’m the one advocating that we should all fight for those of us who can’t fight for themselves. This lady could fight but chose not to because she was afraid of what might happen to her and her family. Which one of those attitudes do you think is more necessary right now? Which one of us would you rather have in your local community? You may not like the blunt nature of my comments but in case you haven’t noticed we’re well past the point that polite conversation is part of the required solution. I certainly don’t know everything but I do know that this lady isn’t going to show up when shit hits the fan in your town, but someone like me might. Maybe you should spend some time thinking about that fact.
No you don’t. You made them up right now.
Her fight is far more public than yours by an enormous factor.
She got her message across to millions by putting her money where her mouth is and leaving, whereas you’re just carping to a few hundred on lemmy calling her names for standing up in a very public way that got more headlines in one day than your carping on the internet will do in your lifetime. You’re just undermining her very important message about how bad things are and how much worse they’re gonna be.
Your bravado is as fake as your fantasy children are.
Your anti-intellectualism, your lack of empathy and your fake bravado all point to you being a rightwing troll just trying to lessen the impact of her crucial lessons from history by discrediting her for taking a stand.
It’s pretty funny that you think I don’t have kids just because you can’t imagine what it would be like to not be afraid all the time. If your fucked up view of things leads to the conclusion that leaving the country is “putting your money where your mouth is” in the context of fighting fascism then I hope to god you don’t live anywhere near me. That’s a hilariously bad take and you know it.
You lie particularly transparently about having kids. You don’t even know why it was obvious that you don’t have kids. Your lie just for argument’s sake is emblemic of your disingenuous approach to the whole topic.
A sensible, intelligent and knowledgeable historian not only told us the lesson of history that once they start coming for the ethnic minorities and locking them up extrajudicially, the intellectuals and the well known socialists are next before anyone who is prepared to be publicly critical. She couldn’t have made her point better than by emigrating.
You’re hating on her needlessly. Hate on trump. Hate on the GOP. Hate on ICE and the judges who enable trump and his goons. It’s honestly as bad as the tankies saying that the Democrats should lose because of Gaza. It’s a stupid and counterproductive purity nonsense that everyone has to oppose the exact same way you do or it’s not real opposition. No they don’t. Yes they can. You’re wrong.
You can say I don’t have kids as many times as you like but that doesn’t make it true. You’re accusing me of all sorts of things and yet you’re making things up and convincing yourself that you know what the truth is. You clearly don’t. If you can’t tell that I’m mad at the GOP and everyone enabling this bullshit, including this cowardly woman, then you’re not listening to that either. Enjoy your delusional world in which cowardice is bravery and lies are the truth.
Dude, you don’t understand truth number one about becoming a parent or you somehow got ppd and didn’t bond with your theoretical children that winked into existence when I called you out on not knowing about parenthood.
I can’t tell if you’re mad about Trump or the gop because you spent days badmouthing someone who publicly criticised them on utterly spurious grounds and have come up with not one single substantive criticism of the current regime until I call you out on it, when it suddenly turns up but is really really vague compared with your irrational, specific and sustained ire against the effective and vocal critic of Trump’s authoritarianism. I can tell who you hate, and it’s this historian who spoke out against trump.
Criticising people who leave their home country because they fear for their safety is, yes, just like the right wingers. They do that all the time. Like you, they take emigration to be a moral error.
Trump would be delighted with your “she’s a coward” stance. It’s exactly the sort of purile hypocritical undermining and deflecting name-calling he would do himself.