I wrote in this post that I’m uncomfortaple to argue “genetical[ly] or genealogical[ly]” why people “belong” in some place or another. I think that’s ethno-nationalist reasoning and a “weapon of the enemy” reasoning applies. Even if it’s in favour of Palestinians.
But apparently, that’s “settler-colonialist apologism” for dessalines. Ethno-nationalism is ok if it’s targeting “the right” people, I guess. /s
I think the reasoning of the comment removal is bollocks. Just because I don’t want to argue why someone “belongs” someplace because of their genes, I’m not all of a sudden in favour of settler-colonialism.
I disagree with the removal but you are wrong. Anti settler colonialism in Palestine use this argument of genetics and genealogical because those where exactly the main justification of Zionists forcing a state on the local Palestinians population. Many Zionists claim that they had has the right to create an ethnostate because of 2000 years old Jewish kingdom and continuous presence in the land while at the same time saying Palestinians are just Arab colonizers that should be transferred to other Arab countries while Israel take all the historical Palestine
exactly the main justification of Zionists forcing a state on the local Palestinians population.
IDK. That’s at least not the full story, since one main reason that Israel exists is the holocaust. But I don’t want to argue over those details.
Many Zionists claim that they had has the right to create an ethnostate because of 2000 years old Jewish kingdom and continuous presence in the land while at the same time saying Palestinians are just Arab colonizers that should be transferred to other Arab countries while Israel take all the historical Palestine
Just because zionists argue with bullshit doesn’t make it any better if you use that bullshit argumentation the other way around. Critizise the bullshit by pointing out that it is in fact bullshit. Not by steeping to the bullshitter’s level.
IDK. That’s at least not the full story, since one main reason that Israel exists is the holocaust. But I don’t want to argue over those details.
Please educate yourself before spewing BS like that. There was no holocaust in 1896 when Herzl talked about forcing a state own Palestinians the local population or during the Belfour declaration . Even if it was true that it was because of the holocaust it’s still BS because a genocide committing by German do not justify stealing lands from people who has nothing to do with the holocust
Just because Zionists argue with bullshit doesn’t make it any better if you use that bullshit argumentation the other way around. Criticize the bullshit by pointing out that it is in fact bullshit. Not by steeping to the bullshitter’s level.
It’s not BS to say that Palestinians the local population who are also descendent of the Canaanites and never left that land in response to Zionists advocating that all Palestinians should be kicked out because they claim that they Arab colonizers
Please educate yourself before spewing BS like that. There was no holocaust in 1896 when Herzl talked about forcing a state own Palestinians the local population or during the Belfour declaration .
Israel wasn’t established until 1948. Herzl also proposed Argentinia. The Holocaust was the main trigger that led the UN to greenlight the project Israel.
Even if it was true that it was because of the holocaust it’s still BS because a genocide committing by German do not justify stealing lands from people who has nothing to do with the holocust
International politics rarely/never happens because of notionsof justice or fairness, but always out of expedience of the actors involved. It was expedient for the west to establish Israel. Especially for post-war Germany. Look up what Adenauer said about Israel.
It’s not BS to say that Palestinians the local population who are also descendent of the Canaanites and never left that land in response to Zionists advocating that all Palestinians should be kicked out because they claim that they Arab colonizers
Where in that argument does genetics come into play?
Israel wasn’t established until 1948. Herzl also proposed Argentinia. The Holocaust was the main trigger that led the UN to greenlight the project Israel.
Why do you keep embarrassing yourself? Herzl ended up picking Palestine in the end. Herzl is referred as the spiritual father of the Jewish State in Israel declaration of independence.
International politics rarely/never happens because of notions of justice or fairness, but always out of expedience of the actors involved. It was expedient for the west to establish Israel. Especially for post-war Germany. Look up what Adenauer said about Israel.
This is besides the point. The point is that the justification to steal land for people who had nothing to do with the holocaust is the biggest BS you can spew
UN decision was based on the reality on the ground in palestine and not the holocust. UN support had zero effect on preventing the creation of israel and helping it creation
Where in that argument does genetics come into play?
Genetics provide information’s about a population indigeneity
Disengage.
Edit: I wrote why I wanted to disengaged which could have been interpreted as further antagonization.
Warning :Do not insult or antagonize further as part of disengaging.
Removed by mod
Do not violate the disengage rule
So wouldn’t it make more sense to completely undermine this idea? Staking a similar claim makes it more debatable since both groups have at least superficially convincing historical narratives in play. And with anti-Palestinian racism being so commonplace in the west, people are biased towards Israeli narratives.
Whereas acknowledging that people always have a right to stay in their homeland just immediately undermines the exile and evictions involved in Israel’s colonialist project. It’s simple and easy to understand and directly rooted in basic human rights that everyone can empathize with.
No, we are not using the same type of argument to prove us right but to prove them wrong. There is people who really believe Zionists stupidest claims so yes it is important to use the same logic just to prove that the argument is so stupid and contradictory.
I just think by engaging in this argument you give it credence, and it’s such a confusing and technical one that most people aren’t going to understand or have the ability to debunk anything, so they’ll just go with their political affiliation.
I mean does the argument that European Jews have a claim to some distant land because some of their ancestors came from there hundreds to thousands of years ago really need to engaged with as a serious argument? I don’t think this really has much weight if you think about it.
Like, I have European ancestry. The implication here is I should be able to go back to those countries and kick someone out of their home just because of this fact? It’s a ridiculous and extremely violent idea. I think that’s going to be a lot easier to get people to see than quibbling about what percent of Jewish ancestors came from here or there.
I mean does the argument that European Jews have a claim to some distant land because some of their ancestors came from there hundreds to thousands of years ago really need to engaged with as a serious argument?
Considered the amount of time i see this argument on social media show that the argument is a serious argument from zionists so yeah i think it is important to adress it
Just look at the far right demonstration in the uk. They couldn’t gather as much people few years ago despite the ideology they hold that no civilized people should accept them
Even a ridiculous theory like fat earth is gaining popularity, 2% of Americans believe in it that’s 6 millions people
Eeegh, This is not a clear-cut subject. While yes, a lot of us believe that one’s genes shouldn’t determine where one is allowed to live, we also can’t dismiss the fact that historically Europeans felt very justified in forcefully going and settling lands where other people already lived because they felt they should just do so, and in the process exterminating the indigenous people and cultures. It’s a more nuanced discussion that can be done in a few sentences, but I don’t think it deserves a ban.
we also can’t dismiss the fact that historically Europeans felt very justified in forcefully going and settling lands where other people already lived because they felt they should just do so, and in the process exterminating the indigenous people and cultures. It’s a more nuanced discussion that can be done in a few sentences, but I don’t think it deserves a ban.
I wholeheartedly agree. But again: bringing genetics into this is racist-pilled.
Again, not clear cut like that, since the aggressive party is indeed very much a settler-colonial project.
I agree. But you can critizise them without arguing with genetics.
Depending on the motivation
The motivation is irrelevant if the result of that chain of thought is ethnopluralism.
You are a useful idiots for pro settler colonialism and genocide
Surely you can explain why, instead of calling me names. Create a proper argument, please.
I already explained why
Where?
https://lemmy.world/post/36586419
And MeanwhileOnGrad thanks to SmugJesus is using this as proof we’re tankies, somehow.
But they don’t brigade us! And Goat definitely isn’t Pug’s friend!
Yet another one for “anyone I disagree with is Tankie.”
Nuance is apparently just a city in France. Love that monkey doing whataboutism in the comments, as if I said “only Europeans can do colonialism”.
Also SmugJesus being an incredibly uncharitable pos to claim my words support “ethnic cleansing”
The person who is a known liar, and replies to db0 users knowing they can’t read his posts is being wrong? Unheard of.
Do you feel the same about First Nations rights? About Ukrainians? Or does it just make you uncomfortable in the context of Palestinians? Are Indians from India? Or South Africans from South Africa? I fear you may have some implicit bias in play here.
One of the big false claims is that Palestinians are solely from the Arabian peninsula when that’s just unequivocally false. They’re indigenous to the Levant and it’s an important distinction to fight Zionist propoganda. Palestinians have the right to argue against being ethnically cleansed by stating their multigenerational ties to their home. Just like any First Nations people or other nationality. You’re concerned about weaponization of ethnonationalist rhetoric in a context where the power dynamics simply do not support such a concept.
Do you feel the same about First Nations rights?
Yes. All the racism BS vanishes if you argue with culture instead of genetics.
One of the big false claims is that Palestinians are solely from the Arabian peninsula when that’s just unequivocally false. They’re indigenous to the Levant and it’s an important distinction to fight Zionist propoganda. Palestinians have the right to argue against being ethnically cleansed by stating their multigenerational ties to their home. Just like any First Nations people or other nationality.
I agree. Still not a genetic argument.
You’re concerned about weaponization of ethnonationalist rhetoric in a context where the power dynamics simply do not support such a concept.
Can you explain that to me? I don’t follow.
So you’re saying that if a culture has been in a land for a long time, that’s okay? That kind of already is what a genealogical history is though?
Indigenous Australians have been on this land for 60,000 years, they have one of the oldest extant cultures on earth. I personally think they get to say “this land is ours”.
So you’re saying that if a culture has been in a land for a long time, that’s okay?
Then what’s ok? Genuine question. I don’t follow.
Indigenous Australians have been on this land for 60,000 years, they have one of the oldest extant cultures on earth. I personally think they get to say “this land is ours”.
I agree. I also agree that Palestine belongs to the palestinians. But there’s a diffenence between stating that a people has inhabited a land for a long time, resulting in a claim for the land and claiming that some individual person doesn’t belong here, because their family is from someplace else.
Also, you shouldn’t use Israel’s line of reasoning. Let me give you an example of what I mean:
Let’s say you wanted to debunk a real NSDAP Nazi from 1940s Germany. Would you agree with them that different races are stronger than the others and that the strongest must dominate the latter, pointing the out that Germany will lose the war, therefore the German “race” can’t be superior… or will you not give credit to that whole premise outright?
Let’s say you wanted to debunk a real NSDAP Nazi from 1940s Germany. Would you agree with them that different races are stronger than the others and that the strongest must dominate the latter, pointing the out that Germany will lose the war, therefore the German “race” can’t be superior… or will you not give credit to that whole premise outright?
What the fluff are you talking about?
What I’m saying is that native people’s deserve recognition of their status as the original inhabitants of a land in opposition to settler-colonialism. That’s not using the same argument as Israel because, at least in the case of Australia, white people were never here before. It’s ridiculous to “both sides” that issue.
What I’m saying is that native people’s deserve recognition of their status as the original inhabitants of a land in opposition to settler-colonialism.
I agree. That’s not what OP was stating. OP’s video said that Bibi Netanyahu doesn’t belong there because his ancestors were polish. That’s an ethnopluralist standpoint.
It’s ridiculous to “both sides” that issue.
I agree. That’s not what I’m doing, though. Israel’s justifications are ridiculous. That’s why you shouldn’t use their kind of justification. Even if it’s pro palestine.
If an Indigenous Australian said to me “Your ancestors were Irish and Italian, you don’t belong here” I wouldn’t fault them at all for that. Least of all because they have zero power to enforce that, and would pawbably be using it as a rhetorical device.
How is this argument different from ethnopluralism?
All the racism BS vanishes if you argue with culture instead of genetics.
I don’t think you mean it that way but this sounds very “I don’t see color” coded. Genealogy is the tracing of the descent of a person, family, or group from an ancestor or ancestors. That is also coded into our genes- mine, yours, everyone’s. There’s not inherent racism in that. Not saying that bad actors haven’t tried to twist it but it’s not intrinsically evil.
Also, the culture argument… Native Americans in the US have vastly different cultures. Pueblo and Iroquois don’t share language, artistic expression, construction styles, technology, etc. Their lives were and are vastly different. Tell Sioux and Navajo you think they share a culture. I dare you. They’re not going to agree with you they’re the “same”. But we can agree all of those groups can trace their ancestors back to North America, that is their home, their land.
Palestinians likewise don’t all share a uniform culture. My husband has ancestors from multiple cultural groups including Bedouin. There are also Christian, Muslim and Jewish Palestinians. All of them practice different cultural norms but they all consider themselves Palestinians and they lived together for millennia and even prior to the existence of any of the Abrahamic faiths. There has been ebb and flow and changes in society but a core genetic lineage, demonstrating their continuous presence, has persisted on the land. They’ve just always been there. Like the Ute in Utah or the Māori in New Zealand.
You’re concerned about weaponization of ethnonationalist rhetoric in a context where the power dynamics simply do not support such a concept.
Can you explain that to me? I don’t follow.
You seem concerned about the way primarily Europeans have weaponized ethnicity. (Not saying it hasn’t happened elsewhere because it does; we’ve seen it used for other genocides globally.) But, a supremacist ethnonationalist rhetoric used by a State power for oppression is not the same as the nationalism of an oppressed people making an appeal for shared heritage and ties to their homeland to resist erasure and as a tool for basic survival and human rights as an indigenous nation. The power dynamics and motives of those two scenarios are vastly different.
PS — I just realized where this has been posted and it’s probably the incorrect forum for such an in depth conversation. I don’t think it should have been censored but I see the underlying concern and potential inflammatory nature of the discussion if argued in bad faith, which I guess I could see how that may be assumed without full context or knowing OP’s motives for posting. I’m going to leave this response because I spent time on it but probably step down from this discussion because of its location and its potential for devolving into a problematic discussion around a sensitive topic on a forum not initially intended for it.
Need to pick one: ‘genetics’ OR ‘geneology’ on this topic.
They’re extensively different and blurring the two allows the discussion to pivot between them, which maximizes the potential for misconstruing points or taking them deliberately out of context.
