alt text

THE TWO MOST STOLEN ITEMS IN THE WORLD: a pen labeled Surplus Value of Workers Labor, and a lighter labeled Indigenous Land

    • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Israel is just taking their land back

      How on earth did you get to that conclusion

      • Rediphile
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not saying I really agree with the position, but I’ll explain what I think they meant for you. It was Jewish ‘holy land’ well before it was Christian or Islamic holy land seeing as Christianity and Islam weren’t even made up until many hundreds of years later.

    • ZILtoid1991@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      With that same logic, the American settlers are just “second wave native Americans”. Of course one can argue that Jews always lived at the area of Palestine/Israel, but currently Israel is the aggressor, even if the actions of Hamas are very immoral.

      • Diabolo96@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Saying Hamas is immoral is an isreali propaganda win. Hamas are freedom fighters and isreal have been commiting atrocities fo the palistinians for more than half a century. Do you think palistinians don’t have the right to fight for freedom ? Read about the history of any colonized nation. The colonizer always called the native freedom fighters as terrorists/ committing barbaric act towards the peaceful colonizer that just want to steal the land and resources and casually commit genocide when the native insurge after the colonizers commit yet another heinous act towards them. Read the history of colonized and see the truth. Fighting for freedom is a right !

          • Diabolo96@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Repeat it in your head as much as you want buddy. I will always fight your bullshit tho. Hamas are palistinians fighting the colonizer. Hamas are freedom fighters.

            • Rediphile
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Is there anything Hamas could do that you feel would be ‘too far’ or that fundamentally impossible from your perspective due to them being the victims of colonization?

        • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          It is atrocious that this trope is running rounds even with people on here. Idiots and people falling for propaganda are calling Hamas terrorists. If not for them for the past couple decades, Palestine would have not existed by now.

          • Diabolo96@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s the fruit of the hardcore isreali propaganda system. Don’t blame them for falling for Isreal lies, guide them to the truth. Telling people that calling the other side freedom fighters/ warriors as barbaric /terrorists is as old as history itself put it into perspective for them and allow them to see it for what it is : propaganda used to delegitimize the palistinians fight for freedom.

      • rchive@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t be silly. There were lots of waves of migrants before European settlers of America. They’d be more than the 2nd wave. 😉

        • cyruseuros@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          Let’s get one thing straight, Germany was not liberated, it was defeated.

          Of course we can say not all… But that’s a sociological tautology.

          It’s exactly this kind of west = good silent premise that’s making us miss what’s beginning to brew over there again now that things are getting tough. Just like it did last time.

          I’m not saying Germans are evil, but we need to be careful with this kind of subtle revisionism. I suspect you didn’t even say it intentionally - it’s just a phrase that’s often used around you, and that’s what makes it doubly dangerous.

          Nothing against you man, I’m just a tad disenchanted with the current state of things is all.

          • MxM111@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You totally missing my point. Who was aggressor in WW2? Were allies aggressors when they entered with military force (have no idea what word to use, since you do not like liberated) into Germany?

            • cyruseuros@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not missing it, just not addressing it. The topic wasn’t of particular interest from that angle. Not to me anyway.

              It’s not that I dislike the word liberated, it’s that it’s completely inaccurate in this case, and those kinds of inaccuracies do have consequences, however slight at first.

              Defeated is a good word. Invaded is another. Liberated isn’t.

    • danc4498@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      You got downvotes, but I kind of agree. The land was stolen hundreds of years ago by people that have long been dead.

      What are we gonna do now? Give it to people that weren’t alive back then?

          • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Ok, so I steal your dads car. Years later, he dies, and they find me with the car. Well your dad is dead, so it’s my car now right?

            EDIT:

            To all the replies, what’s the cutoff? It sure seems to conveniently be the one where we keep everything and everyone else is fucked.

            Should we give Japanese American/Canadian families back the houses and land they lost when they were interred? Why or why not?

            If a car doesn’t count, but raw land does, what’s to stop the government from taking your house? They have the might, laws governing seizing of land is old, so fuck it, why follow it? Is that ok because they have the might?

            If the actions of those ‘hundreds of years ago’ no longer apply, do Americans lose their constitutional rights? What exactly makes something ‘too far in the past’ to have actions done with it? Canadians got the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, is that old enough to break, or too new? What is the line in time, exactly?

            • BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              More like several generations later and anyone who even saw the car in the original owners possesion is dead.

              It does get muddy. Is there even any land on earth that hasn’t been stolen?

            • danc4498@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think land and a car are completely different. A car is a product that has been built and sold for a value. Often it can be proved who owned it, and how they acquired it.

              Land is a finite patch of earth somebody got to first and said “Mine”. Do we respect this rule of “ownership” no matter what has changed about the world and no matter how much time has passed?

              Are we going to be talking about who said “mine” first for the next two thousand years?

              Do we give the Native Americans all the land back and send 300 million people to Europe? Is that your solution?

              • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Honestly at this point, yes. If you want there to be a better solution, come up with something that doesn’t involve genocide. It will come to you VERY quickly. (I’ll give you a hint: Returning ownership to its rightful inhabitants does not require an ethnic cleansing campaign)

                • Rediphile
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Where do the mixed race people go back to? Like someone who is 25% Indigenous 25% Swedish 25% West African 25% North African?

            • Rediphile
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Should we give Japanese families back houses and land they lost when interred is a great question. My initial thought was ‘yes, of course’… but then I thought perhaps we ought to ask the natives whose land those Japanese families had ‘stolen’.

              See, it gets complicated.

              • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                See, it gets complicated.

                Apparently we just do fuck-all because it’s ‘too complicated’ from what I’m reading here; seems pretty cut and dry. Follow treaties people in the past signed? Nah, why bother. It’s in the past. I mean honestly, what rules should we even bother following from back then.

                • Rediphile
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Look, we should do something. I’m looking for solutions. I want Japanese people to get their land back. I want Indigenous people to get their land back. I just don’t know how it’s even vaguely possible or feasible.

                  Also, following treaties signed under duress and in situations of radically unequally power dynamics isn’t too reasonable either. Not to mention that in much of Western Canada, for example, there aren’t many signed treaties at all.

                  It’s complicated, yes… But blindly yelling ‘land back’ doesn’t actually provide anyone any meaningful solutions. No one actually gets any land back that way.

                  • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Also, following treaties signed under duress and in situations of radically unequally power dynamics isn’t too reasonable either.

                    I’m not sure the alternative to following treaties signed under duress is to not even follow said treaties. We can give them all sorts of land that we barely use, nobody is actually suggesting we give them back downtown Vancouver. The issue is we just shrug and go ‘yeah well people live in places now’.