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.
Yes. All the racism BS vanishes if you argue with culture instead of genetics.
I agree. Still not a genetic argument.
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”.
Then what’s ok? Genuine question. I don’t follow.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Because, at the end of the day, Indigenous Australians are the ones who should get to decide. Their land was invaded, and they were violently suppressed. This is all a hypothetical though, because the Indigenous Australians I’ve met just want their rights back, they don’t want to kick out every white person that’s come here.
I don’t really adhere to the logic that anargument loses it’s characteristics if you’re unable to enforce it.
If I’m exclaiming “death to all jews”, it’s still antisemitic if I’m unable to hurt a single person.
I really don’t want to downplay the suffering that indigenous peoples are still enduring due to colonization. But the “your ancestors are from xyz, so you don’t belong in abc” is the core statement of ethnopluralism. It doesn’t get better if you’re being an ethnonationalist/ethnopluralist in favour of the “right” peoples.
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 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.