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.

  • Norah (pup/it/she)@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    61·
    23 days ago

    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.

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
      3·
      23 days ago

      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.

      • Norah (pup/it/she)@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        21·
        22 days ago

        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.

          • Norah (pup/it/she)@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            1·
            22 days ago

            Least of all because they have zero power to enforce that, and would pawbably be using it as a rhetorical device.

            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.

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
              1·
              22 days ago

              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.