2 ms·

Is this implying that these kinds of events are politically advantageous to pro-settlement and native-displacement factions in Parliament? Get attacked, retali

by vkou 3y ago

Is this implying that these kinds of events are politically advantageous to pro-settlement and native-displacement factions in Parliament? Get attacked, retaliate with orders-of-magnitude more force, and drive natives out of their homes and into progressively smaller and more-fragmented reservations?

hotdogscout 3y ago
[flagged]
- padjo 3y ago
  Irish people are not native to Dublin either, but somehow it’s still our capital and not full of Danish people
  - hotdogscout 3y ago
    Indeed. How does that disprove what I said? Palestinians are not native to Jerusalem, neither are Irish people native to Dublin.
bboygravity 3y ago
I have a hard time following the logic here. "Natives" (wut?) start 3 wars with the explicit goal to exterminate an entire nation. They lose all the wars they started (which comes with losing some territory, which is often the case when one loses a war) and that's somehow the fault of the country under attack? So the winning party was supposed to give the losing party extra land for their effort of attempting to exterminate them or what is the idea here?
- hotdogscout 3y ago
  The logic for some is undermining western liberal capitalism to create either a national socialist or marxist leninist dictatorship in it's ruins.
  - vkou 3y ago
    I didn't realize that accurately describing the 75-year-ongoing process of displacing people from their homes at gunpoint undermines 'western liberal capitalism'. Is that sort of thing an integral pillar of it, or something? Will I find it in the Wealth of Nations? Or, maybe, somewhere in Hobbes? The criticisms are telling. None of them address the point, they just split hairs about who is and isn't 'native'[1]. [1] When a group of people moves into a land that is already lived in by another group, the first group are settlers, the second group are natives. That group might be settlers vis-a-vis[2] some other relationship in the distant past, but in the present day, they are natives. Just like if a billion people from Asia moved into the United States tomorrow, to displace Americans living in it into reservations, the current residents of Houston, NYC, Miami, etc, would be considered natives. [2] Strangely enough, most proponents of 'western liberal capitalism' seem to understand this kind of concept when it comes to modern property rights (which tend to prohibit me from stealing land that an ancestor of its current owner stole centuries ago), but many of them become selectively blind to it when applied to on-going colonization.
myth_drannon 3y ago
Arabs are not natives in Gaza, or anywhere in the Levant.

by vkou 3y ago

hotdogscout 3y ago

[flagged]

padjo 3y ago
Irish people are not native to Dublin either, but somehow it’s still our capital and not full of Danish people
- hotdogscout 3y ago
  Indeed. How does that disprove what I said? Palestinians are not native to Jerusalem, neither are Irish people native to Dublin.

bboygravity 3y ago

I have a hard time following the logic here. "Natives" (wut?) start 3 wars with the explicit goal to exterminate an entire nation. They lose all the wars they started (which comes with losing some territory, which is often the case when one loses a war) and that's somehow the fault of the country under attack? So the winning party was supposed to give the losing party extra land for their effort of attempting to exterminate them or what is the idea here?

hotdogscout 3y ago
The logic for some is undermining western liberal capitalism to create either a national socialist or marxist leninist dictatorship in it's ruins.
- vkou 3y ago
  I didn't realize that accurately describing the 75-year-ongoing process of displacing people from their homes at gunpoint undermines 'western liberal capitalism'. Is that sort of thing an integral pillar of it, or something? Will I find it in the Wealth of Nations? Or, maybe, somewhere in Hobbes? The criticisms are telling. None of them address the point, they just split hairs about who is and isn't 'native'[1]. [1] When a group of people moves into a land that is already lived in by another group, the first group are settlers, the second group are natives. That group might be settlers vis-a-vis[2] some other relationship in the distant past, but in the present day, they are natives. Just like if a billion people from Asia moved into the United States tomorrow, to displace Americans living in it into reservations, the current residents of Houston, NYC, Miami, etc, would be considered natives. [2] Strangely enough, most proponents of 'western liberal capitalism' seem to understand this kind of concept when it comes to modern property rights (which tend to prohibit me from stealing land that an ancestor of its current owner stole centuries ago), but many of them become selectively blind to it when applied to on-going colonization.

myth_drannon 3y ago

Arabs are not natives in Gaza, or anywhere in the Levant.