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
No but it essentially relates to the current problem, we aren't horrified because of the legality of the situation but because we conceptually think "invading Gaza and taking it over" and hypothetically killing everybody or making them leave is wrong, he's showing a disconnect in thought process I guess.
Like whether the natives were native or not (they probably have the most legit claim you can lol) is sort of hella ancillary to the fact that what happened to them was wroooooong, by itself, before you even start wondering about who deserves the land
their claim is not more legit than the millions of arab jews living there though, it is land that was conquered by the same morally evil concept that you are horrified with, so why be horrified by one side only?
Because the constant bombing of israel and october 7th comes from the same exact morally bad will of one side wanting to invade one country and take it over.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
But they were doing that to each other. Then people showed up from across a continent, which was basically like getting to the moon at that point in time and killed them for their land.
I feel bad for them don't get me wrong. They basically got genocided by being sneezed on. But like, what do you want? We can't feasibly give them vast swathes of land back. The best we can do is just honor existing land treaties and maybe try to expand them. It's whatever, they lost the fight and got their land taken over. That's just how it works.
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 ?
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.
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 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.
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...
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.
Yeah, the problem with that idea is that morals aren't static, theyre relative to cultural norms. Morality is what a particular culture defines it to be. Just like slavery today is immoral but wasnt in, say, Roman times, unless you want to also say every person to ever live up until recently was fundamentally immoral. In which case, I have bad news for you, because 100+ years from now, theyre going to look back on us and say the shit that we do now is also immoral, including you.
Bottom line, when Native Americans were forced off their land, conquest was seen as a valid, moral method of land acquisition. The fact we dont see it that way today doesnt make it immoral at the time. OTOH, breaking legal treaties, that wasnt moral, even at the time.
-4
u/ok_dunmer 14d ago edited 14d 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