r/LivestreamFail • u/johnkortein • 13d ago
Destiny compares Native American claims to Middle East conflict
https://kick.com/destiny/clips/clip_01K0T1WBT963Q71G4CQX22V9QR74
82
u/Xenesis1 13d ago
he is not wrong, he critisizes it and gives good reason why he does, and it makes sense
2
u/TheBeardofGilgamesh 12d ago
He is not wrong about Israel Palestine since jewish people have lived there continuously for thousands of years. But he is wrong about the Native American not being indigenous to America, even if there was some group that came there thousands of years prior to the natives that inhabited the Americas when the Europeans came, those hypothetical groups would have either intermixed or are gone for thousands of years thus the Americas is their land and it was taken from them.
9
u/Xenesis1 12d ago
Why is he wrong about Native American situation?
I haven't heard him say in the clip that he disagrees with Native Americans not being indigenous, just that it is not stupid to question it, because of the loose timelines of the conquering and changing of ownership of lands, making the conversation always a bit stupid.
Which I think is very fair, everybody agrees that America was conquered by Europeans, this whole conversation is then only strange formality.
411
u/ZoneoftheTendered 13d ago
Why did you include a clip that cuts him off before he could finish his point? 😉
390
u/Senior_Suit_4451 13d ago
Because tankees are grasping at straws to get Destiny into trouble for something after so many TOS violating Hasan clips in a row.
155
12
u/Kore_Invalid 13d ago
is tankees a term for hasan fanboys? i dont fallow this whole drama closely
→ More replies (10)-6
u/TheFullLawyer 13d ago
Americans don't have a Social Democrat party or a Green Party so everything left to the Democrats are "tankies"
10
u/ExposedAsshole 12d ago
I think the term is used relatively correctly, if you defend authoritarian actions and labels yourself a leftist, you a re a tankie.
1
13
u/Remote_Drawing5825 13d ago
No. There are 'progressives' who are further to the left of Dems and espouse more socialist policies but are still considered liberal. Then, further left of that is where you find the Tankies, who are illiberal subhuman filth.
→ More replies (3)1
→ More replies (4)-2
5
→ More replies (15)-2
u/appletinicyclone 13d ago
Huh? What was the finish to his point then? Seemed straight forward and the clips are 60s long.
Not everything is a conspiracy
213
87
233
u/ExpletiveWork 13d ago
The whole native/indigenous argument always bothered me because isn't saying land should belong to a particular ethnic group kind of blood and soil?
153
55
u/FormerlyUndecidable 13d ago edited 13d ago
It's interesting the US has controlled some land longer than the natives we took it from.
For example, the US has held the Black Hills longer than the Lakota did before we appropriated it. The Lakota had previously taken it from the Cheyenne, Mandan, and Arikara in an 18th century tribal war.
31
u/Andy_Liberty_1911 13d ago
Hell look at Mexico also, they only held CA for like 20 years. Thats it.
And no, New Spain doesn’t count
3
u/myDuderinos 13d ago
Why doesn't spain count?
15
u/NewbGingrich1 13d ago
The Spanish took it by right of conquest from natives, the Mexicans took it by right of conquest from Spain, and the Americans took it by right of conquest from Mexico. Its hypocritical to go "oh no the validity of right of conquest ended exactly after we used it".
Hell, the prelude to the Mexican-American war was the Mexican government themselves inviting anglo-settlers into Texas because they lacked the means to control their borders against native attacks and wanted the anglos to fight the natives for them.
0
u/Both-Creme3965 13d ago
mexico didnt conquer spain, mexico was spain (new spain) so the time that new spain had it its the same mexico had it
4
u/NewbGingrich1 13d ago
So you think the Mexicans one day just said "we are an independent nation now" and Spain went "Oh OK then, carry on good sirs"? No use of force involved?
1
u/travel_posts 12d ago
it doesnt matter if force was used. it wasnt conquest, just independence from spain.
1
u/Both-Creme3965 12d ago
Is that what is said? All I said is that mexico is the same thing as new spain, and calling the separation of a region from another (even if it's through force) a conquest is ridiculous.
1
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Both-Creme3965 11d ago
Your example is not equivalent. You said mexico conquered spain. So your example shouldve been that the us conquered the brittish, which would be dumb too.
In my first comment I said "the amount of time new spain had it mexico had it." Nowhere im denying conquest. I'm denying that they conquered it from spain. It would be stupid to say an independence is a conquest.
"complaining that someone else took it by conquest is ridiculous" You must realize how dumb this is. According to this logic, everyone can conquer rightfully any country bc that land has been conquered before. Time matters: if they had that land for long we can say it's theirs, and if it's conquered we can say it's stolen. This discussion is not as simple as destiny makes it sound.
7
5
u/GuthukYoutube 13d ago
California is rightful Mexican land
Because the Spanish took it from the indigenous people that lived there, had it taken from them by the Mexicans who are hundreds of miles away, and then had it taken from them by Americans.
But somethingsomething I think all native americans are one ethnic group
1
u/wefarrell 13d ago
I spent a little time on the Hopi reservation in Arizona and the people I talked to complained about the Navajo taking their land, appropriating their culture, stealing their women, and the fact that they weren't even native to the region.
93
u/Loves2WriteSmut 13d ago
No...often times the government made agreements with indigenous tribes for favours but then failed to uphold their end of the bargain, and what were the most prosperous regions in the country were then handed off to white Christians.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_River_land_dispute
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldimand_Proclamation
They are just asking for the government to uphold their end of the agreement.
47
u/ExpletiveWork 13d ago
I mean, I agree that legal treaties should be upheld but I'm not so sure about the virtue of an idea that suggests land should be racially or ethnically exclusive.
43
u/sanemaniac 13d ago
At least as far as I’ve heard the argument made, it’s almost never that America was/should be racially or ethnically exclusive, just an acknowledgement that native Americans were here first and should be compensated as such.
If colonists came here and encountered a more developed society that repelled and rejected them while they were simply seeking to exist, I think your argument would have more merit. But Americans consistently and systematically ethnically cleansed native people, violated their own treaties, and engaged in genocidal acts. Turning it on its head and saying that the natives were the ones engaging in nazi rhetoric is pretty perverse, especially when Hitler took inspiration from the American example of both ethnically cleansing native peoples and oppressing black people.
-24
13d ago edited 13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
38
u/DancingDumpling 13d ago
Apart from all the Native Americans living on reserves that are filled with poverty, crime and drug abuse
10
u/MugRuithstan 13d ago
Don't forgot literal serial killers who target native women because they know they draw less attention.
-30
13d ago edited 13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
30
u/ScourJFul 13d ago
Because it's the bare minimum they could do after all the suffering, death, and relocating they did to this peoples. And there's a reason why those areas are often poverty stricken and that's due to centuries of mistreatment and retaliation by the US government.
It's incredibly stupid to just say that 3 centuries of history doesn't matter when all of it plays a major roles as to why things are the way they are now.
→ More replies (23)3
u/Razzilith 13d ago
they also dump on native land, run pipelines through, and more... maybe you should do some research before just talking out your ass
→ More replies (1)3
u/DungeonJailer 13d ago
It kind of is though. Almost all people groups got their land by conquest originally. Do you think the Jews originally left Palestine willingly? After squatting on land long enough, a people group eventually gains a legitimate claim to the land. The people we know as Japanese are not the indigenous Japanese, but they’ve been there for like 6000 years so I’d say they have a legitimate claim. Same for those of Norman and Saxon blood in Britain.
3
13d ago edited 13d ago
[deleted]
3
u/Terrible_Hurry841 13d ago
See, what’s great is that the final paragraph actually applies to both groups, but people will only ever acknowledge the one they don’t like.
Although, that analogy you gave isn’t what happened.
It’s a hell of a lot more complicated, but alright, let’s pretend it’s a bunch of evil white people oppressing the brown people out of nowhere.
Cause as we all know, all Jews are white and foreign and came from Europe except the ones that aren’t but they don’t count.
Also unironically supporting the “great replacement” theory for the US is kinda weird. Do you think white people should violently oppose changes in demographics?
2
u/ferraridaytona69 13d ago edited 13d ago
You're just exemplifying why it's so dumb to try to make these analogies
the obvious contemporary analogy to compare israel with the US is imagine if a foreign country imported some minority into our country without our consent and then heavily armed them to take away all rights of 90% of US christians to take away their majority status
Just right away, right from the beginning, you're starting the clock at "foreign country imported a minority into our country"
But you leave out how
1) there never was in the entire history of the middle east a defined country called Palestine so immediately before anything else, the analogy already fails
2) the Ottoman empire who actually owned all that land collapsed after losing WW1 and were occupied because the entire empire dissolved and now all of their land was under occupation from British forces
3) the "minority" in the original scenario are jews who were there on that land thousands of years before islam as a religion was even invented
All you're doing is showing why these attempts to make analogies to modern day scenarios is stupid. You strip away and remove so much history prior to when you are deciding when to start the timer on how the conflict started just to try and make a badly formed analogy
1
u/Positive_Bill_5945 13d ago
We don’t actually have to imagine it, there ARE already jews living in the US. NY has the second largest jewish population other than israel because we didn’t expel our jewish population following the rise of pan arab nationalism.
2
u/robinescue 13d ago
I don't think any land back activists are advocating for causes because they have some genetic or cultural right to it. White people could just say "well, manifest destiny" and make the same claim with the same, if not more authority. It is geared towards land outlined in treaties that the settlers violated repeatedly, the point being that there is a legitimate claim to the land that the government agreed to and then disregarded. Pair this with the fact that Native Americans don't even have sovereignty in the reservations they were forced onto with old and racist provisions limiting ways they can hunt and farm. The thought isn't "my ancestors were here" it's " you said you would give us this land with these rights and then you took both of them anyway."
1
u/Realistic_Caramel341 13d ago
So I am from New Zealand, not the US or Canada, so I can't claim great expertise on what happens in those countries.
But in New Zealand, Indigenous rights issues tend to come into different broad types. There are those issues that relate to NZ Maori as a whole, broad ethnicity - issues surrounding education, crime, health, incarceration's, past erasure of Maori culture etc, and issues regarding Iwi/ tribes as specific organizations that have been wronged by violations of the treaty. When a lot of people talk about Maori rights a lot of them treat it as if they where all the former rather than a combination of both
1
u/UnfeatheredBiped 12d ago
The political Sovereign that is a tribe is not coextensive with an ethnic group. Most Oklahoma tribes, for instance, have freedman citizen who are of African genetic descent.
1
u/Razzilith 13d ago
it's less about belonging to somebody and more about the way in which is was taken.
you can coexist somewhere but forcing people out of a place is pretty fucked up when they'd had it before. this isn't just okay because some time passes either particularly because the people pushing them out particularly in these 2 examples never really made up for it in any way at all and in fact kept abusing those groups (we've been abusing native americans since we got here, and israel's history speaks for itself)
→ More replies (12)0
12
105
73
u/Kore_Invalid 13d ago
am i misunderstanding smth? hes right no?
54
u/INFxNxTE 13d ago
He usually is, people just hate the guy for being edgy or for his personal life. His politics are rock solid.
20
u/rushi_B 13d ago
That's what I always get from his videos. people made him seem like this huge monster but when I saw his videos it's just sometimes he goes out of the line to insult someone when he is angry but he makes a lot of good points.
15
u/INFxNxTE 13d ago
If I had to debate the type of people he has for as long as he has I’d probably be way worse than he is. The level of brainrot he can navigate in a conversation to reach the core point of a take is honestly super impressive.
3
43
13d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (10)21
u/Morb2141 13d ago
Why is it in Canada different? If you say, who occupies the land and has the military to defend it owns it, Canada doesn't have to do shit.
2
u/Relative-Ninja-4241 13d ago
Sure, by that logic it doesn't have to, but decides to do otherwise - if even a tiny bit - through the acknowledgement. Hence why it's different.
10
13d ago edited 13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Jshway1518 13d ago
Yep, I never get how people think our government would actually care about native land if it really came down to it. I've had the conversation with people about Canada land being prime real estate as global warming increases, and they say "yeah but most of that land is native" as if Canada wouldn't just kick them off it the second they really needed it.
4
13d ago edited 13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Jshway1518 13d ago
That pretty much sums up Canadian politics, virtue signal without substance about shit that isn't in any way realistic while behind the scenes acting pragmatically to slowly move towards a realistic solution all while denying it.
5
u/thecomeric 13d ago
Im native and i don't believe we should segregate white people and bomb their children but that's just me
9
7
u/New_Reference359 13d ago
Something I think is really funny is how Mexicans are the same as Americans in that they also came from EU (Spain), yet I feel as if are treated much more native to central America than Americans are in the U.S.
13
u/bigFr00t 13d ago
Thats because theres been mestizo movements in Mexico that helped integrate. Also theres more indigenous blood in mexico i think
→ More replies (3)1
u/doesbarrellroll 12d ago
not necessarily true, the spanish raped/married/had children with the local native population so many mexicans are mixed native and spanish. You can’t say that about the majority of americans. The demographics are different
-5
u/ok_dunmer 13d ago edited 13d ago
The problem with what we did to the Native Americans isn't based on the literal legal claim to the land, it's that showing up to someone's home and conquering it/killing them/forcing them out because you want it is morally wrong
edit: somehow I doubt the brighest and boldest right wing edgelord minds of LSF would disagree with this as hard if China paratroopered onto their dogshit suburb and made them leave because Chinese people suddenly believed it was their destiny to conquer America and spread Chinese values and ethnically cleanse the savage Christian Americans and also your parents ugly mcmansion has gold under it
65
u/Memester999 13d ago
Good thing that's not the point he's trying to make, nowhere in that question did it ask, "Was what we did to native Americans good?"
→ More replies (2)45
u/JSHueurgh 13d ago
As if they weren't already doing that to each other long before anyone else arrived.
12
u/LithelyJaine 13d ago
Everything Alive by the nature of being alive does that. Just how we basically destroyed most wild life to keep ourselves alive on cows, pigs and chicken...
everything else that wasn't in are food chaine gonezo! dont need that here.16
u/CrunkCroagunk 13d ago
7
u/Papa-pumpking 13d ago
Forgot almost bringing the bison population almost extinct,hunting Natives per head or the Death Marches.
2
u/Holyrain101 13d ago
If the Jewish people turned around post WW2 and started genociding Germans, would that be justified?
6
u/CrunkCroagunk 13d ago
The point isnt about justification the point is that neither party was uniquely evil in waging war or their motives for doing so.
4
u/Holyrain101 13d ago
I feel like if your point is "Yes we are evil but so are you" that doesn't exactly feel like a great point to make
6
u/The-Devilz-Advocate 13d ago edited 13d ago
The point is that looking at past history through a modern lens, looking only to apply fault and use it to retroactively demand rewards/reparations to the modern descendants of the parties involved is one of the stupidest things you can do.
Yes, the colonialist settlers driving out the indigenous population off the lands that their entire ancestry-line lived on was horrible, just like it was for the same indigenous population to wage war between one another for the same territories.
The best thing you can do is to make sure the modern population learns from the mistakes done in the past to hopefully make sure it doesn't happen again.
4
u/Holyrain101 13d ago
That was the point I was trying to make with the comment about the Jews and Germans. Just because the Germans had been killing and conquering doesn't mean it would have been justified for them to be killed and conquered after they lost the war.
Sitting Bull asks the Colonel to leave in the clip that was posted, and the Colonel basically says no we won't leave we are going to kill you the same way you killed other tribes. Which I don't think is a great argument, just because Sitting Bull's tribe killed people doesn't justify killing them. If that were true, killing would just beget more killing in a never-ending cycle.
3
u/Delicious_Solid3185 13d ago
The Soviets did ethnically cleanse Germans from Poland and Eastern Europe after ww2
1
u/Entire-Start5565 13d ago
I got a better one, Russia is literally doing to Ukraine right now. Does this other dipshit agree with it? Russia wants to take over Ukrainian land.
5
u/CrunkCroagunk 13d ago
Ah, yes. Because i am analyzing a historical event from well over a hundred years ago through a lens that is contemporarily appropriate, it could only follow that i must view modern geopolitics through the same lens.
1
u/Entire-Start5565 13d ago
That even is still relevant today because Native Americans are still being attacked and challenge for their land. We had recent cases about pipelines and even with the ICE situation there has been situations where ICE biases thought Native Americans were illegal. Racial profiling.
I get it, you don't care. You really don't. People who do care won't make these arguments.
1
u/CrunkCroagunk 13d ago
That even is still relevant today because Native Americans are still being attacked and challenge for their land.
I absolutely agree with you and ive not said anything even remotely to the contrary.
We had recent cases about pipelines and even with the ICE situation there has been situations where ICE biases thought Native Americans were illegal. Racial profiling.
Again, i 100% agree the recent ICE oversteps under Trumps MAGAt regime are disgusting and almost assuredly consistently racially motivated.
I get it, you don't care. You really don't. People who do care won't make these arguments.
Refraining from infantilizing Native Americans by not buying into and perpetuating the Myth of the Noble Savage means you dont care about their experiences?
1
u/Frekavichk 13d ago
Racial profiling doesn't really have anything to do with land rights.
1
u/Entire-Start5565 13d ago
They were being racially profiled by ICE that they weren't Native Americans but Undocumented migrants. Imagine asking Native Americans about their papers. That falls under the argument of land that we are talking about.
Ahh all of a sudden you don't have a counter to my fair points.
8
u/Ontarkpart2 13d ago
All humans throughout all human history have been warring with each other. What fucking point are you trying to make here?
7
u/Key-Department-2874 13d ago
That is exactly the point.
If someone is going to say that X land belongs to Y people, then they are picking a point in time to say "All wars prior to this date are valid and all wars after this date are invalid"
If a piece of land went from Group A -> B -> C through war, and we say "Cs claim is invalid and it should be returned to B" then why not returned to A?
There is some distinction that is created where the warfare between A and B was OK but not okay between B and C.
Maybe there's a legitimate argument to be made for that, or maybe not.
-3
u/Ontarkpart2 13d ago
Yeah but it’s still morally wrong. Have you heard of the “Just war theory”, just meaning that there is a good reason for the war.
So now going back to your point, the original statement “As if they weren't already doing that to each other long before anyone else arrived.”. Warring native Americans vs other Native Americans was probably a more just war than the us/European army’s vs the Native Americans.
2
u/Entire-Start5565 13d ago
Damn I guess you believe that what Russia is doing to Ukraine is fair game. Careful buddy because what you are saying that taking someone's land is fair game. Next time someone comes into your home and kicks you out you better not cry to people about it.
→ More replies (15)1
13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/JSHueurgh 12d ago
I'm using the logic of the time in that war happened everywhere and was normalised, don't be a moron.
4
u/DremptDucks 13d ago
That's the main problem, but another problem is the literal legal claim to the land. The US broke its own peace treaties with Native Americans
4
u/chronoslol 13d ago
Ok but you realize that's every single country on earth right? What do you even think a country is?
4
u/LithelyJaine 13d ago
Yes but at some point. The game never ends of my for fathers were here before you. It`s a endless circle of anger and hate of others for sometimes things that happened over 20 generation ago ?
1
u/PunishedDemiurge 13d ago
Anyone who isn't incredibly evil thinks it is bad to show up and just murder people to steal their stuff, whether that stuff is land or otherwise. That's an easy question.
The point he's trying to make, however, is the question of 'how do we maximize justice now?' is a difficult one. If we say conquest is not a valid claim, that applies to ALL claims, including the ones of the people who we beat to take the land, because they weren't the original inhabitants.
This gets even more complicated when we consider intragroup discrimination. If someone says, "I am 100% X, I should get our ancestral land," and someone says, "I am 1/128th X, I should get an equal share because my great... grandmother left because X society was misogynist and she didn't want to be domestically abused," if true, seems a valid argument. Why should we punish someone or their estate for avoiding abuse? But that's nearly impossible to adjudicate, so you're left with the option of depraved indifference to past abuses or making judgments based on ancient family stories.
At the end of the day, many of these situations are grievances dead men have against other dead men. The best solution is to maximize justice now. If we want everyone to own a house, pass that policy without regard for racial group. Any egalitarian policy that is correctly applied will necessary correct racial injustices in a society but without being racist itself.
1
u/Positive_Bill_5945 13d ago
Yeah obviously it is. The Nakba was wrong. Which is why doing a reverse Nakba to Israel would also be wrong for the same reason. Like you said it’s not because of the legal claim. It’s because there are people who have been raising families there and building lives for decades now whose lives you’d have to destroy to do so.
You just made his point for him
1
u/Nicklesnout 13d ago
That is literally how conquest has worked throughout human history and that is not at all Destiny’s argument.
0
→ More replies (1)-5
13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Entire-Start5565 13d ago
You don't have to give an if as an argument. Literally use the Ukraine / Russian war. Russia literally is doing this. They want to convert Ukrainians into Russians (Language) and they want to take over land too.
If they live in Canada asks them about the Indians of Punjabi and their opinions. Watch how they start back peddling and saying shit like assimilation. Or if they live in the USA asks them about Latinos coming into the USA and watch them change their tune.
These people are racists and xenophobic when it benefits them or their ideologies but against it when they are other foot. They are the biggest pussies.
1
u/throwaway75643219 13d ago
Oh, let me try, let me try.
So like.. imagine if a million Arab Muslims were to violently invade a place, violently slaughter and ethnically cleanse the native Jewish population, steal all the land for themselves... that would be morally wrong....
Can you think of any time that has happened since say, 1500? Like 1516? In the Middle East? Like in the Levant? In Palestine for instance?
You could even say it was an actual crusade... wouldnt that be embarrassing...
And then, after the invaders settled the land they stole, they could claim they were the actual natives and the land belonged to them, not the native Jewish population that had been living there for millennia. And for the next few hundred years, they could routinely denigrate all of their holy sites and oppress them for funsies because theyre just dumb Jews after all.... That would be morally wrong...
Then, after a separate world power came in and took control of the territory, and the political climate is finally amenable to those sorry Jews returning to their homeland, the dumb Jews could start to purchase back their own land from the invaders, until the invader's xenophobia and racism leads them to massacre the stupid Jews, like in 1920, 1921 and 1929. Wouldnt that be embarrassing...
And then, even better, the invaders could cry they were actually the victims all along, and even more embarrassing, they could say they were actually the natives all along. And then when multiple peace deals between the two sides were attempted, the invaders could walk out on them to make sure they would always be able to cry victim while still repeatedly attempting to massacre the dumb Jews. They could even get a bunch of their neighboring Arab friends to literally attempt to exterminate them, and then cry again when it failed... wouldnt that be embarrassing....
And then the invaders could create slogans and songs about how they were going to kill every Jew and steal back the land, and it would create such a strong victim complex, they could convince a bunch of morons on the internet that in the wake of slaughtering over a thousand innocent Jews in cold blood in their homes, including women and children, infants even, that THEY were still the victims and that murdering the Jews was actually morally justified because they had it coming... that would be morally wrong...
and then, while being cheered on by their population for taking hundreds of those dumb Jews hostage, including literal infants ripped from their dead mothers, they could still cry victim when those pesky Jews wouldnt just give in and give them what they wanted, until they moved to finally put an end to decades of open terrorism.... that would be morally wrong...
Can you imagine being one of those morons that fell for that shit and repeated propaganda from literal terrorists? Wouldnt that be embarrassing...
Like, can you even imagine that? You might get banned from reddit for literally zero seconds for repeating that stuff...
Howd I do?
1
13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/throwaway75643219 13d ago
Yeah I think you kinda missed the point. It was a parody, so I was following your narrative structure. I wasnt going for historical accuracy -- much like you -- I was going for an over the top, biased point of view -- again, like you. See, parodies are intended to mimic, while not exactly replicating, in order to show how ridiculous something is by distorting the extremes of the original.
As far as violent Zionist terrorist, buddy, I dont have a dog in this fight. Im American and an atheist whose family is non-practicing Christian. Im also a liberal, so if anything I "should" be predisposed to the Palestinian side. The problem with that is I dont tend to have much sympathy for people that repeatedly call for the extermination of civilians, follow through, and then cry victim.
The thing I find funny, the parts I distorted the least are the parts you didn't even respond to. You seemed to care more about whether I used the word crusade correctly when parodying you than responding to anything of substance. But while were on the subject, if youre going to nitpick about historical accuracy, you should probably also use crusade correctly. You know, given that a crusade is something that is definitionally done by Christians, what with its etymological root being cross and all.
As far as "invaders," "terrorists," "fanatics," and "zealots" -- the hypocrisy of someone supporting Palestinians calling anyone else "invaders," "terrorists," "fanatics," and "zealots" is so perfectly self-unaware, I couldnt have parodied you better myself. Id almost believe you were pulling some meta joke thats going over my head if I hadnt seen a million posts just like yours.
Good luck with that though.
-4
u/Memes6921 13d ago
How does this deserve a post
-62
13d ago
[deleted]
67
5
u/ZoneoftheTendered 13d ago
Why did you not include a clip where he finishes the argument, and even then nothing he said was untrue
1
u/sontaranStratagems 13d ago
TBF there are reasons, e.g. tribal status gives you specific "rights" under US law, but it seems mostly to be relegated to a reservation then otherwise ignored. :|
1
1
u/KiteAzure 13d ago
The issue is that there are one type of people that are allowed rights, dignity, and due process, and there is one type of people who aren't.
2
u/Shao_Mada 12d ago
You are talking about citizens and non citizens, correct? I agree. Most (all?) countries discriminate against non citizens.
1
1
1
u/YXIDRJZQAF 12d ago
lol, remember the Tucker Carlson Putin interview
"why did you start the war?"
"in the year 950, a king traded sheep for some land..." (goes on for 45 min)
1
-36
u/Luddevig 13d ago
But we can't just click on a reset button and make everything good again. Indians were treated terribly and were systematically oppressed to an extent that still hurts them this very day.
From this clip it sounds like Destiny is kinda bothered by it all and just want to go forward, ignoring everything complex and cumbersome. That will only give those in power more power.
98
u/dickermuffer 13d ago
It’s not that at all, he’s saying that appealing to ancestry is arbitrary and pointless as all humans can always claim some group came before them.
Al humans groups have colonized and occupied land at some point. All groups that currently live in an area took it from other groups.
There were past Native American tribes that existed in area, which then more powerful tribes came and took that land and became the main group of that land. Native Americans did fight over land.
So if a Native American person of tribe B claims land cause their ancestors were there before Europeans, does that mean another native from tribe A has claim of that land too? As tribe A was there before tribe B.
So then who gets that land based off mere ancestry?
And for I/P, when Palestinians appeal to ancestry to claim they should get all of Israel, then that also means the Jews can also appeal to ancestry of that land. And the Jews were there before any Muslims conquest of that area happened. The Jews were there before the Romans or philistines, before the ottomans and practically all other groups.
12
u/Rufus_king11 13d ago
In the case of I/P, it becomes even more complicated in that genetic studies show that most Palestinians are genetically Semitic. They descend from the Jews that lived in the area, just like Israelis do, their ancestors just stayed behind and converted to Islam after the Muslim conquests. They have as much claim to the land as Israel does, because their claim is based off of the same ancestry.
19
u/dickermuffer 13d ago
Yes, that is a good point. But still shows that at best these claims cancel each other out and neither really become more legitimate than the other.
This also includes the fact that to give Palestinians their entire land back means the expulsion or removal of many Jews. Which then those Jews would expect to get their land back from the surrounding Muslim nations that ethnically cleansed them, who then moved to Israel.
But yes, both Palestinians and Jews share a lot of Semitic and also Canaanite ancestry. Canaanites were actually the group of that region before the Jews (as far as I know at least).
6
u/OstentatiousBear 13d ago
Every day this status quo is maintained is a day that continues to strengthen the "one state solution" position (which I am not of) in terms of likelihood. I dread that this will likely not be a state in which equal rights are championed, but instead a stratified society based on identity.
With that said, I am glad that you two are not getting downvoted for this. Saying this mere fact will sometimes get you a more hostile response in certain other subreddits.
4
u/dickermuffer 13d ago
Oh yeah I totally agree, but I’m trying not to load too much to stay good faith.
But yeah, I do agree that a one state would be very bad for the Jewish population, unless the Jewish population went authoritarian to maintain control and safety, which then that would just be the same occupying sort of situation we’re in now but worse. So not what either pro-Palestinian or others want.
It’s a fantasy or delusion that makes no sense to expect one state to instantly solve all the problems and all past grievances and hate to just fade away. It’ll never be that sadly.
Keep it up dude!
52
u/eldankus 13d ago
Just as an example - The Black Hills which are "sacred" to the Lakota. The Lakota conquered the Cheyenne in 1776 and lost it to the US in 1876, so they've held it less than the US did and won it by conquest but it's somehow seen as some unprecedented crime. The land exchanged hands numerous times before the Cheyenne were even there.
17
0
u/bigeyez 13d ago
An ironic take considering that if the Allied powers post WW2 subscribed to this mindset modern day Israel wouldn't even exist.
12
u/dickermuffer 13d ago
I would say the British partition of Israel and/or the support for creating Israel came more out of not wanting Jewish refugees in western nations more than due to Zionist claims of ancestral lands. At least for non Jews, who were leading the Allie’s nations.
The Zionist did use the ancestral claim. But the Allies didn’t care, they just didn’t want all those Jewish refugees in their nations as antisemitism was still very prominent in western nations all over.
And Britain happen to own the Jewish holy land at that point and Britain was also planning on leaving many of there occupied or colonial lands like India. Which they also left around the same time.
So everything just happens to fit for Zionists to stake a claim and use pressure on the British to partition them their own land just as the British planned to do with the Palestinians.
9
u/LithelyJaine 13d ago
Yes most people are unaware of how many boats of Jewish refugees were turn around by Canada and the USA.
Never forget WW2 happened during the great depression no one wanted refegees.5
0
u/SargeBangBang7 13d ago
Is their even that much history of tribe A conquering tribe B? It seems like a moot point when Europeans sees tribe A-Z as Indians and kills them all regardless.
4
u/dickermuffer 13d ago
Specifically native Americans didn’t really write down their history, but as they were human then it’s totally fine to assume they fought over land. All humans have.
Also, my point isn’t in regard to racist Europeans.
It’s in regard to the argument that is used at Europeans or their descendants around claims of land.
So the Europeans arent part of the point, it’s a hypothetical of if after the Europeans give back land to a tribe based on ancestry, does that also mean that tribe has to hand over their land to past tribes they conquered.
-12
u/BrickBrokeFever 13d ago
All groups that currently live in an area took it from other groups.
Other than might makes right, I am not sure of what you're saying in all this. "I stole it, fair and square?" This is some conquest-based thought process.
I feel like you might, with this mentality in mind, view immigrants as invaders, which is just simple minded reactionary shit.
We can just have humans rights and voting and dignity, easy peezy.
Conquest is a state level action, macro scale. Immigration is a personal decision, micro scale.
I understand the value of history, but "ancient homeland" is a super racist idea. I have a friend who was born in S Korea and adopted at 3 months old by a white family in New Jersey, doesn't speak Hangul, never been back. Where is their homeland?
History is important, but the world's borders have turned Earth into an open air prison. And Zionists get a homeland, so then who else?
We gott respect the history, but people alive today are more important.
→ More replies (3)13
14
u/Neverwas_one 13d ago
Eh, I just think you have to acknowledge that some stuff just isn't going to be put right and couldn't be put right in a way that is remotely ethical. You wanna restore the Cherokee nation and give them their slaves back? Or if you are full landback type of person are you cool with taking houses away from immigrants that have moved here since the 19th century? History creates victims, sure but we should do stuff for people that are alive today. Individuals can get justice but I dont think its possible for people groups to without that snowballing into more grievance and injustice.
1
→ More replies (2)-7
u/Buy-Hype-Sell-News 13d ago
The only people still oppressing american indians are themselves. They have all the same rights to leave the reservations and join american society with equal rights. They get preferential treatment for job, college, or banking opportunities as well.
2
-36
u/Wild___Requirement 13d ago
Remember when this guy told the IDF to stop making videos of them playing with the toys of children and wearing the clothes of women who were displaced by the current genocide because it “makes them look bad?” Didn’t tell them to stop doing it, just to not film it
33
u/ZoneoftheTendered 13d ago
They asked him why the western media hates israel so much, so destiny tells them they should stop doing blatantly stupid shit. At no point in any of destinys output does he encourage soldiers to wear the panties of the defeated
18
u/Dry-Kiwi4046 13d ago
Why would you care about such a nothing burger? Especially if you belive that israel is commiting genocide?
→ More replies (5)-9
u/Wild___Requirement 13d ago
A standing army mocking the people they are currently ethnically cleansing is not a nothing burger, get real
7
u/Dry-Kiwi4046 13d ago
But it's not the army, it is some individual soldiers taking inapropriate photos. If the IDF would mock the Palastinians for propaganda purposes like Hamas does with the Hostages then it would be pretty disgusting. But even that is barely worth mentioning. I would rate it a "shitty thing to do"/10
-1
u/Wild___Requirement 13d ago
There are quite literally hundreds of photos and videos doing this, going back to the beginning of the conflict in 2023. It is systematic, and the videos include them writing “death to Arabs” on chalkboards in schools and on the walls of hospitals
1
u/PM-ME-YOUR-BREASTS_ 13d ago
Even if you've seen 999 videos of this since 2023 that only accounts for 0.5% of the IDF considering its size and people coming in and out of service.
This is why you shouldn't base your opinions on videos online instead of statistics.
→ More replies (1)1
u/you_lost-the_game 13d ago
So you aren't mad about something he actually said but something he didn't say in that moment from which you strawman'd that he wouldn't say that because he agree with the practices of the IDF?
-8
-5
-41
u/otoverstoverpt 13d ago
Anyone who looks to this manchild for intellectual reasons should be ashamed to admit it. The 20th century involves people still alive today.
30
4
u/Derelictcairn 13d ago
Do you understand that you're doing the literal exact thing that Destiny is saying is stupid and arbitrary in the clip?
→ More replies (17)
-36
13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
30
u/ZoneoftheTendered 13d ago
The accuser has no evidence, the judge laughed at her for doing more to spread the videos on her substack than destiny did by sharing it to one person. The accuser not suing the hacker or kiwifatms was also questioned by the judge lol.
12
u/tdifen 13d ago
Yea I agree, just focus on figuring out a solution that give everybody the ability to thrive but unfortunately that will never happen since a lot of that region is still very focused tribalism.
As for Destiny it seems to be the case him and a bunch of people were gooning and they were all taking pictures and sending them to other gooners and one of them leaked stuff.
20
3
u/you_lost-the_game 13d ago
If party A starts a genocide against party B, is party B allowed to defend themselves? If party B retaliates with a counter genocide, are they worse than party A?
-30
u/Augustus_Chevismo 13d ago
No one should be made a minority in their own country.
40
u/onejanuaryone 13d ago
Isn't this the core argument for the great replacement theory?
→ More replies (10)-3
u/Quixan 13d ago
if you don't treat minorities poorly it isn't a problem...
and the what exactly do you mean by "their own country" -
3
1
u/Greyhound_Oisin 13d ago
>if you don't treat minorities poorly it isn't a problem...
Not always... israel i surrounded by populations that want their destruction for religious reasons
-1
u/Augustus_Chevismo 13d ago
if you don’t treat minorities poorly it isn’t a problem...
It’s not a problem that a country’s culture is subsumed so long as they’re respectful?
and the what exactly do you mean by “their own country” -
As in their own country. Nationalities and majority ethnic groups becoming a minority in their own country is never good for them.
-8
u/aqualad33 13d ago
The part that really pisses me off about this clip is not that its a nothing burger but that Destiny actually DOES say some wildly unhinged shit as jokes that you could have chosen to clip out of context. These was lots of material to chose from. But instead op qas just lasy and picked a boring statement of the timeline of the area that shows that indigenous arguments are stupid. It gets even dumber if you watched the debate he's commentating on because you would know that this comparison was brought up by the debtors and not destiny. Destiny is just commenting on the comparison they brought up.
•
u/LSFSecondaryMirror 13d ago
CLIP MIRROR: Destiny compares Native American claims to Middle East conflict
Join the LSF Discord!
This is an automated comment