Americans conquered America from the aboriginals who were living there
Edit: Btw, if it wasn’t clear, I’m disagreeing with you, because by your logic we would also have to condemn:
Egypt who conquered Nubia, parts of the Levant, and various neighboring regions multiple times.
Babylon and Assyria dominated who Sumerian lands, various Mesopotamian city-states, and parts of the Levant.
The Persian Empire conquered most of the Middle East, Egypt, and parts of India, and later Central Asia.
Islamic Caliphates (Umayyad and Abbasid) who conquered parts of North Africa, Spain, the Levant, Persia, and more.
The Ottoman Empire that controlled large parts of Eastern Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.
The Roman Empire that conquered Britain, France (Gaul), parts of the Middle East, North Africa, and much of Europe.
The Macedonian Empire (Alexander the Great) who conquered Persia, Egypt, parts of India, and Greece.
The Viking Conquests that involved colonization of parts of England, France (Normandy), Iceland, Greenland, and even North America. Napoleonic France conquered parts of Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and attempted to hold Egypt.
The British Empire colonized the Americas, Australia, India, parts of Africa, and various islands worldwide.
The Aztecs conquered neighboring Mesoamerican tribes before the Spanish conquest.
Incas who subjugated various tribes across the Andes, forming an extensive empire.
The Spanish Empire who conquered most of Central and South America, the Caribbean, and parts of North America.
The United States acquired Native American lands across the continent through treaties, purchases, and conquests (e.g., Mexican-American War for the Southwest).
Portuguese colonizers who took land from indigenous Brazilian tribes.
The Mongol Empire who conquered China, Persia, the Middle East, and parts of Europe.
The Chinese Dynasties (Han, Tang, Qing, etc.) that expanded China’s borders through conquests, including Tibet, Xinjiang, and Manchuria.
The Japanese Empire that colonized Korea, parts of China, Taiwan, and occupied Southeast Asia during World War II.
The Russian Empire/Soviet Union that expanded into Central Asia, Siberia, parts of Eastern Europe, and Alaska (later sold to the USA).
The Zulu Kingdom who expanded in Southern Africa, subjugating neighboring tribes.
The Ethiopian Empire that conquered various kingdoms within what is now Ethiopia.
The Colonial Powers (Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, Portugal) partitioned and ruled over nearly all of Africa.
Maori Tribes in New Zealand conquered and displaced other Polynesian tribes.
Polynesian Expansion colonized the Pacific islands, often displacing or assimilating previous inhabitants.
European Colonization of Australia: British settlers took land from Indigenous Australians.
Surely, it is impractical that we demand that current nations and peoples return land to those who lived there centuries or millennia ago. Modern borders are often built upon layers of historical migrations and conquests, making a clear-cut solution impractical. We can’t use moral rubrics of today to judge past (and that’s talking centuries an millenia ago) actions.
Depends on what you mean by condemn. All of those things were bad when they happened. But we can’t forever condemn the descendants of warlike people as tainted colonizers.
On the other hand, in the case of some of the more recent events, we still have people today who are marginalized, impoverished, and lack access to land as a result of those past atrocities. Most notably for the west, this includes native Americans and Palestinians, among others. This situation calls out for a just solution. The redistribution of land, extra services, reparations, etc. should all be on the table for the descendants of the colonized. But notably, the expulsion of the descendants of the colonizers should not be—this will just perpetuate a similar injustice into the future.
I 100% agree with you. Those things were bad in retrospect, but it’s not worth comparing actions of today to back then because the times have changed.
Also, there definitely should be a concerted effort to resolve the concerns of those who still suffer from those past atrocities. For the Israel-Palestine saga, that might well be a two state solution as many propose, but i know there will still be people willing to argue with and insult me for this position.
I think a two state solution is probably the most realistic one, even if it might not be my perfect ideal solution. But a big issue with it (at least as currently conceptualized) is that Israelis already occupy a large portion of the more valuable and productive land and water resources, while Palestinians have been pushed into marginal areas. So drawing up the boundaries where people currently live perpetuates this injustice.
Additionally, creating two hostile neighboring ethnostates creates a lot of future problems. Will these nations coexist more peacefully than in the past? That’s not totally clear but at least it will make the ongoing settlements and ethnic cleansing more politically complicated for Israel and give Palestinians more official recognition at the UN and elsewhere. Furthermore, it will also be very likely to result in the expulsion of some people from their homes and lands which I oppose in almost all circumstances.
All that said I don’t see how any other solution is really possible so if the parties could agree on it I would support it, imperfect though it may be. Peace is rarely perfectly fair but it is still worthwhile nonetheless.
Oh definitely, it’s not the best, but it’s the most that can be done. Especially with the point about hostility. I mean Israel already withdrew from Gaza before, and we know how that went, so there’s always that threat that’s going to be looming over their heads. Let’s just hope they can settle this soon.
Yes, it’s exactly the same as post-war Germany… if we ignore the bombings, indiscriminate murder, lack of productive capacity, lack of free movement, evictions and land theft, lack of democratic processes and institutions, and many other factors that have been imposed on them externally.
“Land Back” is relevant to North America and Australia etc. because the genocides and expropriations are within living memory and in some cases ongoing.
That’s a different point entirely. I was only disagreeing with the commenters comparison of what happened to the Canaanites thousands of years ago to what’s happening today with the Palestinians. What i think about giving the land back to the Palestinians doesn’t matter.
It’s a false equivalence. Yes, it’s a fact, but let’s not pretend like they weren’t trying to use the Canaan conquest example to put a bit more dirt on Israel’s name. Yes, they did it. But so was every other empire and nation back in the day. Context matters.
Edit: I didn’t realise the first commenter in this thread was you haha
Gotcha… I guess I interpreted it as simply replying to the question of who I was talking about initially (native Americans or Israelites).
I’d say yes everyone was doing it, but we don’t “give back” land that was conquered… Like, America is never going to give America back to the first people’s, and we’d be pretty pissed if the world tried to make us (which is why it’s understandable that the Palestinians are pissed too)
It would be impractical to undo every theft that has ever occurred, and yet we still condemn theft, work to prevent it, punish thieves for it, and try to undo what thefts we can.
I’m not talking about thousands of years ago, but I guess you’re responding to a comment about thousands of years ago. Maybe we don’t disagree, but it’s all too common for modern-day colonizers to try and dismiss their very recent actions as if it were ancient history.
Not true, not all conquests involved erasing the indigenous peooples. At least not for the Muslim conquest of the Levant according to Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister:
“The fellahin are not descendants of the Arab conquerors, who captured Eretz Israel and Syria in the seventh century CE. The Arab victors did not destroy the agricultural population they found in the country. They expelled only the alien Byzantine rulers, and did not touch the local population. Nor did the Arabs go in for settlement. Even in their former habitations the Arabs did not engage in farming…their whole interest in the new countries was political, religious and material: to rule, to propagate Islam, and to collect taxes…the Jewish farmer, like any other farmer, was not easily torn from his soil…Despite the repression and suffering the rural population remained unchanged.” [7]
Fair enough. My point still stands though. The person i responded to’s comment can be applied to any number of these peoples, so it’s wrong to claim, “The Israelites have been doing this stuff”, when really, everyone was doing it
You hit the nail on the head. I don’t know why people argue without considering context. It’s not like I’m disagreeing that Israel’s genocide is wrong, but we have to consider context when we compare this stuff to history.
Americans conquered America from the aboriginals who were living there
Edit: Btw, if it wasn’t clear, I’m disagreeing with you, because by your logic we would also have to condemn:
Egypt who conquered Nubia, parts of the Levant, and various neighboring regions multiple times.
Babylon and Assyria dominated who Sumerian lands, various Mesopotamian city-states, and parts of the Levant.
The Persian Empire conquered most of the Middle East, Egypt, and parts of India, and later Central Asia.
Islamic Caliphates (Umayyad and Abbasid) who conquered parts of North Africa, Spain, the Levant, Persia, and more.
The Ottoman Empire that controlled large parts of Eastern Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.
The Roman Empire that conquered Britain, France (Gaul), parts of the Middle East, North Africa, and much of Europe.
The Macedonian Empire (Alexander the Great) who conquered Persia, Egypt, parts of India, and Greece.
The Viking Conquests that involved colonization of parts of England, France (Normandy), Iceland, Greenland, and even North America. Napoleonic France conquered parts of Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and attempted to hold Egypt.
The British Empire colonized the Americas, Australia, India, parts of Africa, and various islands worldwide.
The Aztecs conquered neighboring Mesoamerican tribes before the Spanish conquest.
Incas who subjugated various tribes across the Andes, forming an extensive empire.
The Spanish Empire who conquered most of Central and South America, the Caribbean, and parts of North America.
The United States acquired Native American lands across the continent through treaties, purchases, and conquests (e.g., Mexican-American War for the Southwest).
Portuguese colonizers who took land from indigenous Brazilian tribes.
The Mongol Empire who conquered China, Persia, the Middle East, and parts of Europe.
The Chinese Dynasties (Han, Tang, Qing, etc.) that expanded China’s borders through conquests, including Tibet, Xinjiang, and Manchuria.
The Japanese Empire that colonized Korea, parts of China, Taiwan, and occupied Southeast Asia during World War II.
The Russian Empire/Soviet Union that expanded into Central Asia, Siberia, parts of Eastern Europe, and Alaska (later sold to the USA).
The Zulu Kingdom who expanded in Southern Africa, subjugating neighboring tribes.
The Ethiopian Empire that conquered various kingdoms within what is now Ethiopia.
The Colonial Powers (Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, Portugal) partitioned and ruled over nearly all of Africa.
Maori Tribes in New Zealand conquered and displaced other Polynesian tribes.
Polynesian Expansion colonized the Pacific islands, often displacing or assimilating previous inhabitants.
European Colonization of Australia: British settlers took land from Indigenous Australians.
Surely, it is impractical that we demand that current nations and peoples return land to those who lived there centuries or millennia ago. Modern borders are often built upon layers of historical migrations and conquests, making a clear-cut solution impractical. We can’t use moral rubrics of today to judge past (and that’s talking centuries an millenia ago) actions.
Removed by mod
This is exactly the point, but some people don’t mind twisting rhetorics and context when it benefits their argument. Truly annoying.
Yes, we should condemn all of that
Very well. I don’t disagree. But the commenter specifically made mention of how “Israel” has been doing this, while ignoring historical context.
Because we sit at the pinnacle of history, judging all the past generations who came before us. Holy Whig historiography Batman.
Depends on what you mean by condemn. All of those things were bad when they happened. But we can’t forever condemn the descendants of warlike people as tainted colonizers.
On the other hand, in the case of some of the more recent events, we still have people today who are marginalized, impoverished, and lack access to land as a result of those past atrocities. Most notably for the west, this includes native Americans and Palestinians, among others. This situation calls out for a just solution. The redistribution of land, extra services, reparations, etc. should all be on the table for the descendants of the colonized. But notably, the expulsion of the descendants of the colonizers should not be—this will just perpetuate a similar injustice into the future.
I 100% agree with you. Those things were bad in retrospect, but it’s not worth comparing actions of today to back then because the times have changed.
Also, there definitely should be a concerted effort to resolve the concerns of those who still suffer from those past atrocities. For the Israel-Palestine saga, that might well be a two state solution as many propose, but i know there will still be people willing to argue with and insult me for this position.
I think a two state solution is probably the most realistic one, even if it might not be my perfect ideal solution. But a big issue with it (at least as currently conceptualized) is that Israelis already occupy a large portion of the more valuable and productive land and water resources, while Palestinians have been pushed into marginal areas. So drawing up the boundaries where people currently live perpetuates this injustice.
Additionally, creating two hostile neighboring ethnostates creates a lot of future problems. Will these nations coexist more peacefully than in the past? That’s not totally clear but at least it will make the ongoing settlements and ethnic cleansing more politically complicated for Israel and give Palestinians more official recognition at the UN and elsewhere. Furthermore, it will also be very likely to result in the expulsion of some people from their homes and lands which I oppose in almost all circumstances.
All that said I don’t see how any other solution is really possible so if the parties could agree on it I would support it, imperfect though it may be. Peace is rarely perfectly fair but it is still worthwhile nonetheless.
Oh definitely, it’s not the best, but it’s the most that can be done. Especially with the point about hostility. I mean Israel already withdrew from Gaza before, and we know how that went, so there’s always that threat that’s going to be looming over their heads. Let’s just hope they can settle this soon.
Removed by mod
Yes, it’s exactly the same as post-war Germany… if we ignore the bombings, indiscriminate murder, lack of productive capacity, lack of free movement, evictions and land theft, lack of democratic processes and institutions, and many other factors that have been imposed on them externally.
Removed by mod
“Land Back” is relevant to North America and Australia etc. because the genocides and expropriations are within living memory and in some cases ongoing.
Removed by mod
If you go back and take a look at what i typed, i never said anything about supporting what Israel is doing today
So you’re agreeing that giving Palestine “back” to the Jews just because their ancestors lived there was stupid?
That’s a different point entirely. I was only disagreeing with the commenters comparison of what happened to the Canaanites thousands of years ago to what’s happening today with the Palestinians. What i think about giving the land back to the Palestinians doesn’t matter.
Who were you disagreeing with? The comment you replied to just stated a fact… I don’t see any of this comparison in that comment
It’s a false equivalence. Yes, it’s a fact, but let’s not pretend like they weren’t trying to use the Canaan conquest example to put a bit more dirt on Israel’s name. Yes, they did it. But so was every other empire and nation back in the day. Context matters.
Edit: I didn’t realise the first commenter in this thread was you haha
Gotcha… I guess I interpreted it as simply replying to the question of who I was talking about initially (native Americans or Israelites).
I’d say yes everyone was doing it, but we don’t “give back” land that was conquered… Like, America is never going to give America back to the first people’s, and we’d be pretty pissed if the world tried to make us (which is why it’s understandable that the Palestinians are pissed too)
It would be impractical to undo every theft that has ever occurred, and yet we still condemn theft, work to prevent it, punish thieves for it, and try to undo what thefts we can.
So you are disagreeing with me how? You want to punish Israel for what they did thousands of years ago to the Canaanites?
I’m not talking about thousands of years ago, but I guess you’re responding to a comment about thousands of years ago. Maybe we don’t disagree, but it’s all too common for modern-day colonizers to try and dismiss their very recent actions as if it were ancient history.
Not true, not all conquests involved erasing the indigenous peooples. At least not for the Muslim conquest of the Levant according to Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister:
Ben Gurion is quoted by Shlomo Sand in his book https://blogs.umb.edu/joinercenter/2012/10/09/review-of-shlomo-sand-the-invention-of-the-jewish-people-london-verso-2009-translated-by-yael-lotan/
Fair enough. My point still stands though. The person i responded to’s comment can be applied to any number of these peoples, so it’s wrong to claim, “The Israelites have been doing this stuff”, when really, everyone was doing it
Excellent comment, I frequently bring this concept to others attention when the term “colonizer” is used.
Arbitrary and selective use of the term to fit a specific narrative detracts from current day realities.
Somehow people seem to have forgotten that times of peace and respect for manmade borders and laws of sovereign nations are not the norm for history.
You hit the nail on the head. I don’t know why people argue without considering context. It’s not like I’m disagreeing that Israel’s genocide is wrong, but we have to consider context when we compare this stuff to history.