You forgot the part where the komodo dragon’s “promised land” was full of Phoenician Canaanites they had to genocide first.
The same Canaanites from Noah’s son because after everyone was killed by a flood, God deemed Canaan’s blood the good people worth saving?
He sure seemed to fuck it up and have to wipe out humans quite a few times. But that’s what you get for putting a tree in Eden for no other reason but to introduce sin to the innocent and trick humans into thinking Lucifer was the evil one.
And now he loves America. Just don’t tell the Italians.
Starting to see a pattern of bad outcomes for whoever makes a deal with this guy at the time…
You mean “was full of tasty snacks”.
Imagine Mongolia just started invading China and be like “MY ANCESTORS USED TO LIVE HERE”
Imagine the Australians descending on London like “Oh yea nah me bluddy rellys is fully from here aye!”
I would support that. After that Australia can join the EU, and they’re already in Eurovision.
And maybe do something about the TERF infestation.
Yes please. I’ll donate to that gofundme.
This is Turkish nationalists with Turanist dreams
There’s literally a province called Inner Mongolia where the Mongols not just used to live but live to this day.
The irony would be even greater if they were kicking out birds who they accused of displacing the ancient Dinosaurs.
Does this also apply to Native Americans or…?
Native Americans have a different claim. They are not claiming their ancestors give them the right to use the land. They have agreements with the US government. The US then promptly turned around and ignored their promises. The native Americans have the receipts.
Agreements about historical land ownership only apply to white people!
Blood and soil nationalism is ok when it’s promoted by non-white people.
deleted by creator
China is the same way.
never seen such a bunch of 9-dash fantasies. the logic they use to posit these idiotic claims is breathtaking.
Well that’s where t-rex lived
There’s a guy in southwest England whose family didn’t leave the village for 9000 years.
Even better is that the guy is 42 with no kids. I get that we all technically have ancestry that goes back to the first life on the planet, but this guy suddenly happens to have verified family lineage that goes back farther than any other human on the entire planet… And he’s the last one.
I pray that he consciously chose not to have kids… I know how soul destroying it can be to want to have kids but not be able to. But this guy… He suddenly, because someone needed a warm body to fill out their numbers to a nice round number, is directly confronted by a family lineage 9000 years old. And he’s the last. What an absolute mind fuck.Inbreeding mastery level: British
“Vegeta, what does the scouter say about his inbreeding levels?”
“IT’S OVER 9000 YEARS!”
H-how did they get spouses? Nevermind, I probably don’t want to know.
Spouses can move to the village, it’s just that the children never leave.
At least one parent was born in the village.
Birds: Um, akshully, we’re more closely related than you are!
Chickens 100% are just mini T-rexes.
Cassowaries make a lot more sense when seeing T-Rex like that.
They probably looked a lot more like birds than reptiles too because taxonomically speaking birds are actually dinosaurs.
The problem is that this argument can really be made both ways. If someone said Israel shouldn’t exist because Palestinians used to live there before that, that’s just essentially the same argument.
Israel shouldn’t exist because it’s a colonial apartheid state perpetrating a genocide. That doesn’t mean every non-palestinian has to leave either.
But saying that Israel shouldn’t exist doesn’t mean that the Israelis have to leave
Okay hold on but what about the original Canaanites? Isn’t it their land?
They’ve all been dead for about two millennia
The area has had a population for thousands of years. The original Canaanites are the people who were still living there in 1947 when would be Israelis invited themselves to that land.
By 1947 they had been calling themselves Palestines for centuries
Well more like millennia. The Romans called the area Syria-Palestine. The Canaanite thing is really just to demonstrate that the Israelis weren’t the original inhabitants even in ancient history.
I honestly have no idea who those people are
The people the tribes of Israelites conquered to take ancient Israel.
Maybe im encroaching on a bit of history i dont know well enough, but isnt tribes of Israelites just a fancy way of saying Egyptian refugees? Deport them - I bet they even came in caravans, didn’t they?
Lmao it’s a little more complicated than that, I’m being very unserious.
Neither argument hold any merit and is an example of the tyranny of history. Who cares what a bunch of dead assholes thought was theirs? The people who live there (not the politicians who pretend to represent their interests) are the only people that have any legitimate claim to authority on what should be done about the region.
It is especially meritless to equate people who claim the land based on other people sharing their religion having lived there a thousand years ago, with people whose grandparents got kicked out of their houses and who’ve had to live in an open air prison ever since while being subjected to regular attempts at ethnic cleansing.
Yep, maybe they could have a big fight, winner takes all.
In my world understanding colonialism was never good, but anything after ww2 is just invalid. There needs to be some cut off date where we say “at this point everyone knew and we had international laws against genocide” after which it just becomes invalid and any land claimed afterwards is not recognized or supported.
Israel was definitely too late to the colonial party and kinda should be considered illegitimate.
A little convenient that the cutoff date is after Europeans divided the world for themselves.
right? all colonial states are illegitimate
Ofcourse they are, but if you go back to times where colonialism was the norm and in no way internationally frowned upon, then not a single current day country would be legitimate. So it kinda makes sense to set the cut off at a point where colonialism was at an all time low, because if you dont then all you get is world war.
colonialism was the norm and in no way internationally frowned upon
When you mention colonialism wasn’t frowned upon, who were the people that did not frown upon it then?
who were the people that did not frown upon it then
The fellow colonizers… yeah that was worded badly. But i think you know what i mean. Back then maybe other European countries were jealous of other colonizers, but they didnt really see it as a bad thing to be colonizers. Now even the ex-colonizers see it as a bad thing and when countries do it, they get called out for it. Russia, China, USA, Israel, etc
Its the same as with oil and coal dependency. Yes the West disproportionally profited from those historically, and we can think about compensation etc, but in the end its in everyones interest to just stop using it and bully anyone that doesnt reduce their usage of it.
My point is that your baseline for legitimacy and moral acceptability is based on the attitudes taken by the colonizers, then and now. It can feel pragmatic and reasonable, but I think it only seems like a defensible position because the “ex”-colonizers (I mean, the U.S. hasn’t been decolonized, has it?) broadly agree that “colonialism is bad”, though it does seem like strong support for Zionist Israel by colonial countries like the U.S. and UK is a clear counter-example to this.
Ultimately if you look closely and found Zionist occupation illegitimate, you will certainly think so of other occupations. The reasons you give for ignoring the illegitimacy of other occupations don’t feel that different than those given for ignoring the illegitimacy of the Israeli occupation.
A huge proportion of the world was still under direct colonial control after WWII. Like most of Africa, swathes of Asia. Pick a country on a map and look at the date it was granted independence. I can almost guarantee that it will be later than you expected. Post-WWII is not a low point for colonialism.
I would further argue that many of the countries that were granted independence only received the ability to install administrators who were of an indigenous ethnic group. Trade agreements and terms dictated by loans from groups like the international monetary fund still directed a large proportion of domestic and foreign policy. So even though the government of a country may have had a constitution and veneer of democracy it was still operating at the behest of foreign interests (ex. Shell in Nigeria, Firestone in Liberia, Exxonmobil in Indonesia, etc.), who propped up puppet leaders that allowed them to continue to extract resources under the same or similar agreements they enjoyed under colonialism.
One of the more jarring facts is that the so-called “post-colonial” era was more of a move to outsourced administration of colonies than actual independence. The fact that “intervention” is still performed basically only when some area has valuable resources or some kind of strategical advantage really says it all.
Post-WWII is not a low point for colonialism.
I was thinking creating new colonies, not maintaining existing ones. Ofcourse dismantling colonial government structures is also important, but arguably not creating new ones is the most important first step. Just pulling out all presence from all colonies over night would have most likely been disastrous for the natives too in most cases. But yeah the West definitely overstayed for far too long in many areas of the world and still does to this day.
Saw an excellent video from some Al Jazeera offshoot yesterday. The guy was explaining the concept that Europeans actually tended to put in minority populations in charge that were sympathetic to their interests - Alawites in Syria, the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan, European Zionists in Palestine - and that the borders were essentially designed for colonial administration instead of representing existing groups.
It’s also a function of how far back are we willing to go? Are we going to split and merge countries? Or is it more important to get representative governments in place for the people that live there?
i disagree with your logic but you got to the right conclusion so cheers 😆
Israel as a state or the Israeli people? Because most of the jewish immigration to Palestine happened before 1945
No it didn’t. Most of the Jews came after the Palestine nakba/massacre which made Jews feel unsafe in the middle east (jeez I wonder why, but also not their fault.) the Jews who came before the independence were all European terrorist who built armed settlements and militas Far away from Palestinans and Palestinan Jews as they didn’t support them.
Let’s read it charitably. Maybe they mean more middle eastern Jews moved to Palestine in the last 6000 years than did europeans in the last 50.
Thing is, most likely Palestinians are descendants of Jews who lived in Palestine, who were once the caanites of Canaan and so on and so forth. The Jews who over time converted to islam, (but not all, Christians and Jews still very much exist tho not sure about numbers) before 1918 the Jewish population was a 56,000 thousand and many of those were immigrants by 1939 they were almost half a million
And Jews that converted to Christianity under the Romans/Byzantines and then converted to Islam. Israel focuses on calling them Arabs to imply they migrated from the Arabian peninsula but that’s not what happened. They were arabized by Arabian rulers that migrated. It’s not like the berbers ceased to exist, but somehow Israel wants us to think the levant was mystically empty.
That’s all it is, we don’t call the Europeans Romans and it’s the same with the middle east, did Arabs migrate around the world and we share some genetics with them? Sure but in reality it’s in the minority apart of the vast diversity of the genetics of one of the most diverse and ancient regions on the planet. My father used to tell me our ancestors were all Arabs who conquered into sindh and Punjab and settled there, which may or may not be true but in reality when I checked, it was below %5, my ancestors weren’t just Arabs, my ancestors were also Hindus, Sikhs, Jain’s, Zoroastrians, perhaps some Hellenism in there too along with many many many other cultures and religions, which is like a mosaic. Our eyes should be opened now that the western media and imperialism never died in ww1 or ww2 but in reality just changed forms. Do your own research, find primary sources and dig deep. Don’t become a nuthead type conspiracy theory but there is a lot of information and misinformation out there so critical analysis of information is one of the most vital skills you can have now
It was socially important to claim descent from the Arabs, so many overstated it and it became part of their family story regardless of the truth. The Turks/Mongols didn’t do this mind, they viewed themselves as equals to Arab conquerors.
As you say, many families converted to Islam out of choice or simply left. Drag thinks maybe the original point was that Palestine has always been a place where Jews could live in peace. But Israel has never been.
Palestine was a place for Jews to live in peace and personally the whole religion war is a smokescreen. You look at the stats you look at the footage and historical texts and historic Palestine was a multi faith and cultural society recognition as important to many faiths. It’s not my place to say but even after all this I wholeheartedly accept Jews in Palestine BUT the Jewish supremcist apartheid state is all of the most evil aspects of European colonialism and nazi Germany/american manifest destiny into one shitty little state. Israel has done nothing for anti semitism and may be the thing that resets the clock back to post Roman conquest levels of Jewish hatred if things don’t change. I don’t want that, all humans are humans and no people are a monolith. I pray for a multi faith Palestine with no supremacy of any people (tho Jewish right to return should be revoked and Palestine right to return established as their actually refugees while vast amount of Jews coming to Israel to settle are dual citizens.
Hungarian ultra-nationalists: “Since your kind was under my ancestor’s rule, you have to rejoin my country and learn my language, or else you’re a [incoherent antisemitic screaming]!”
Seagulls be like…
deleted by creator
I love it when the folks attempting to talk down to everyone else don’t know how history worked or how all those lines get drawn on the map.
🍿
your comment is ambiguous: are you insulting my opinion or the other opinion? I need to know so I can act accordingly
so you blame the brits, then, for selling the land twice?
“interesting” that op won’t commit to an actual opinion on this. Could it be they agree but are too chickenshit to say!?
So your concern is that OP legitimately thinks that Komoto Dragons have a legitimate claim to all land? Or am I missing something?
Wow… You don’t seem smart.
says the guy calling someone chickenshit. sorry bud but humans are not chickens, chickens are an entirely seperate animal
Lol I love you
Also you’re a banana
you are pickles 😀
If you don’t clarify, then I and everyone else, have to assume that is your position based on your original post.
Hmmmmm, would this be a bad time to say Native Americans be like?
Well, the Native Americans have actual agreements that were made with the US government, that were then broken immediately by said government. They have the receipts. So this is a bit different.
An appropriate response would be that Native Americans are still being oppressed, marginalized, having agreements violated, to this day, that they’re rightly due actual reparations and land back on that basis, but that the statute of limitations for these kind of claims, if you’re trying to devise some kind of universal ethical system to deal with them, may extend 100, 200, 300 years, for various types of claims, but not 2,000. And the population dynamics and methods of displacement and so on are not the same at all either, which have critical implications on who they would expect reparations from. The Palestinian people did not displace the ancient Jewish population - genetically it’s been shown that they’re the descendants of that population, religious identity notwithstanding. The Romans and other groups instigated that displacement. The Jewish groups in the diaspora are not solely descendants of that population either, they’ve intermingled with other populations, such as in Eastern Europe. Native Americans on the other hand have a direct claim against the people still occupying the land they inhabited, and I’d say have remained a more distinct group today, if you want to deal with the question of ethnic homogeneity (which is of questionable importance in the first place).
Picture some scenario where you were going to have some kind of hypothetical international lawsuit, assuming all things were on the table in terms of what you could dedicate for reparations, and that you’re just slapping reparations onto different ethnic groups for their historic grievances. Who would the Jewish people as a whole be looking for reparations from first? The Post-WWII migration was spurred by Nazi Germany. They were alienated of their property in Europe. Germany pays some marginal form of reparations today, but for some reason the question of their compensation has been answered by depriving a completely unrelated people of their rights. What cause of action do the Jewish people have against Palestinians? None. The Palestinians today have a cause of actions against the subset of Jewish people who participated in their ethnic cleansing and genocide. The situation is not comparable to that of European settlers vs. Native Americans at all, unless you invert it to say, the Native Americans have a cause of action against European settlers for ethnic cleansing and genocide. What you are doing is inverting it into some hypothetical situation where Native Americans have performed ethnic cleansing and genocide against white people, which they have not, not in any meaningful sense. The way you have to understand these questions is that one group has been put into a lesser position of wealth and privilege than another, and that attempts to deal out justice would have to resolve that imbalance, but only to the extent that it’s reasonable and just.
What reparations are owed to the Indigenous people of the Vietnamese highlands, perpetrated against them for centuries against the other Indigenous people of the Vietnam lowlands?
I suspect you have better answers to that question than I do. Though the more pertinent question would probably be the reparations they’re owed from the genocide perpetrated against them by the U.S.
The cruel reality is that humans kill and steal from each other in competition for resources and security. Doesn’t matter if it’s a bullet to the head or a dishonored agreemen. Land belongs to nobody, and whoever shows up and beats the fuck out of whoever’s there now “owns” it. It is very hard for people to look at several hundred K of years of human history and realize it’s always been this way and never will change.
Try it and let us know how it works for you. Be sure to say it to their face in real life. 150 years is like 4 generations, that was after a sequence of attempted genocides, and then there was another two generations of trying to whitify them (fun fact, football has lots of rules because Yale attendees were soft racist little bitches who need participation trophies even 100 years ago). So yeah, let’s see what happens.
For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me.
(Exodus 20:5, NKJV)
you disgust me
