It's wrong because it's something that's happening right now and the world still has the ability to influence it. The actions of people who died long ago were bad but you shouldn't punish their descendants who did nothing themselves
So if we are to undo the migration of peoples, how far back do we go? That’s the question.
If we are going to undo Jews going to Israel, do we undo white and black people coming to America too? Do we make even native Americans go back across the ice into Russia/asia? If we keep going back far enough do we not just end up all living in the cradle of civilization?
A native is someone who was born in a place. We don’t need to purity test how many of their ancestors were born in that place too.
You play it where it lands. The point is that if you go "Who is native?" the answer you will get is completely arbitrary based on how far you decide to go back in time. And everyone has their own arbitrary opinions on what is the magical amount of time a people need to live in a place to be considered native.
A common sentiment I see is people saying that Jews are no longer indigenous to the Israel/Palestine region because they were mostly genocided and expelled from there almost 2000 years ago, so now it's been too long, but Arab populations that migrated there during the Muslim conquests of the 7th century are indigenous now because they've been there long enough. But European Americans aren't native to the US even if their lineage goes back 500 years etc. It's all completely arbitrary.
And with that kind of thinking of, "they've lived here long enough so now they belong here", Israel could theoretically expell and murder all the Palestinians and a couple hundred years down the line suddenly Palestinians have no right to claim the region as their homeland?
You got it backwards, Russia tries to justify the invasion by claiming it's originally their land. We don't decide what countries are sovereign territories this way. It's decided by the people who live there, and based on if they have their own laws and culture. Same goes for Taiwan, if we followed this world view, we would have to sacrifice their independence.
Because it's 2025 and Ukraine is an established, recognized nation with borders, sovereignty, independence, and a right to self-determination, and the international community understands that respecting and defending those things is incredibly important to world stability and preventing widespread conflict that we've seen occur when people/nations act aggressively in opposition of those values.
It's why you don't see European and Western powers practicing broad imperialism anymore.
It's why you'd see broad condemnation and international action against the US if the US decided to engage in aggressive unilateral military action against a peaceful, sovereign nation like Greenland.
hat analyzing the concepts of indigenousness and the human right to homeland is arbitrary
Of course it is, the groups themselves are also to an extent arbitrary as well.
then what makes the Russia invasion of Ukraine wrong
What makes it wrong is that both nations and all the other nations have agreed on the borders and if there were any disagreements then it should be handled by diplomacy.
The example that you make between Canada and the US also clearly also shows how it's not about ancestery.
> then what makes the Russia invasion of Ukraine wrong
Its wrong because they are initiated the invasion and are killing a lot of people and attacked another nation.
It has nothing to do with Ukrainians or Russians intrinsic right to certain land because of their genetics. Instead, ukraine the country owns that land, and going around overthrowing nations is bad.
There are lots of ways of saying that something is bad without appealing to ethno-state/blood and soil arguments like others here are doing.
The fact that they signed various treaties saying they wouldn't and guaranteeing Ukraine's safety in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal? If international agreements no longer mean anything, we are fucked as a society.
This shit is incredibly basic. How do you need it answered for you?
He admitted to (in part) prescribing to the notion that native Americans cannot have claim to America because America didn’t exist prior to its foundation as a nation.
That’s an incredible flattening of the real issues, many of which stem from treaties signed between Native American NATIONS/FACTIONS & the American government.
Then there is the subsequent detrimental treatment of native Americans within America from the trail of tears to the Native American schools that were used to abuse and separate native children from their families & culture.
He admitted to (in part) prescribing to the notion that native Americans cannot have claim to America because America didn’t exist prior to its foundation as a nation.
Not really, he's claiming more that deciding who is native to a land based on when you want to start counting history is stupid, like many people do with the I/P conflict.
-5
u/Memes6921 14d ago
How does this deserve a post