No, its as though a persecuted religious minority of pilgrims left their home and founded a colony on Native American land and refuse to give it back. And so do all the current citizens of that nation who reap the spoils and speak hypocritically about “colonizers” and accuse others of “occupation” from the safety the “stolen land” they themselves “occupy”.
No, its as though a persecuted religious minority of pilgrims left their home and founded a colony on Native American land and refuse to give it back. And so do all the current citizens of that nation who reap the spoils and speak hypocritically about “colonizers” and accuse others of “occupation” from the safety the “stolen land” they themselves “occupy”.
You've completely lost the plot. The OP complained about precisely that form of demand that Americans give back stolen land:
"Everything these days is a genocide, we(white Americans) have to continually apologize and make amends for collective acts of violence in the past (often the very remote past, ie colonization of native lands)"
So clearly there does exist a substantial minority group of people who non-hypocritically want to return stolen land to Native Americans.
Meanwhile, there's another group of people (and I would be among this group) who think that rectifying the injustices of genocidal colonialism through land reclamation is hopeless beyond a certain time window (and, concomitantly, triggers other moral obligations to improve the lives of the victims of past genocides), but that time window obviously is not "yesterday," and many of the land seizures and expulsions for which Israel is responsible have occurred within the last 30 years. You don't get to claim adverse possession on something that happened during the period when the Simpsons was on air.
And, again, there's nothing "hypocritical" about recognizing that genociders can sometimes create unfixable facts on the ground that can only be dealt with by means other than direct restitution of lost property. Obviously, however, the international community has a very strong incentive to not permit that sort of thing to happen very often, else it creates a moral hazard that rogue states like Israel try to squeeze themselves through.
Yes, OP was talking about the ridiculous “stolen land” BS and the hypocrites who “really do” want to give the land back aren’t starting with their own property or their family’s, so no they don’t really want to give it back just like those white morons talking abiut greater representation in their field don’t mean their own jobs, because their hypocrites mouthing platitudes.
I’m glad you don’t think returning land is a good idea but your timetable for when return is unfeasible is completely arbitrary and nonsense because when they talk about “occupation” they mean Jerusalem and Haifa and thats well beyond your Simpsons mark.
And it is hypocrisy when talking about others commiting restitution when one is themsleves guilt of the same “crimes” but doing nothing to redress them besides mouthing platitudes.
Anyone who wants to talk that stolen land shit can start with their own house, car and property. They can be an example to us all or it’s just hypocrisy.
This comment is precisely as sensical as complaining about someone who wants to raise taxes by saying "well, if you're so happy, why don't you pay all your own income to the government, huh?" It's obvious to anyone but a moron (query whether you fall into that category) that people are often willing to take actions as part of a society-wide shift in legal requirements that they are not willing to take as uncompensated volunteers.
No, its not money is fungible, land is not. If one wants to give the spoils of being a “colonizer” back but don’t mean their own property, they do mean someone elses, they are a hypocrite (query whether you fall into that category)
Much like the “sanctuary city” morons who never believed it would impact them personally, then when immigrants were shipped to their city to spread the resource burden they began to change their tune. If one wants open borders start by opening your home. You want to give back “stolen land”, start with your home otherwise, its rank hypocrisy.
I largely agree with you, but sanctuary city just means a city doesn't deport witnesses to crimes for obvious good reasons. It was used/promoted perhaps first by Rudi Guiliani (before he was insane). As someone who thinks that is a reasonable policy and also thinks we should be able to control our own borders (and had no issue with Obama when he was being called deporter in chief by the left), I find it infuriating that people pretend "sanctuary city" = open borders.
Respectfully, it may have once meant just that but with the Trump administration’s push to curb illegal
Immigration, it meant much more. It became a symbol of faux-“resistance” to “authoritarianism”, as though policy just like the Obama admin before & Biden admin later was True Evil. Cities and States making it deliberately harder to secure that border, in effect, incentivizing illegal immigration rather than helping to deter what would become the crisis it is now. So, while I agree that “open border” may be a stretch, not much of one. And the cities that spouted that “ICE=evil” rhetoric certainly changed their tune when they began to share the burden. All the sudden illegal immigration was a real crisis.
Evidently you have some theory as to how "fungibility" is somehow relevant here; I do not. A statewide law giving a 10% share in all land to the local Indian tribe is an obviously different proposal than me personally giving 10% of my (fictional; I don't own any real estate at present) tenancy in common to the local Indian tribe. It's not remotely hypocrisy to support the former but not the latter.
Skipping over the off-topic immigrant bashing here.
Fungibility is an issue because tribes generally want specific land, like the Palestinians (that colonizers have their family's homes on now) not just 10% of whatever crumbs the “concerned” colonizer deigns to break off for them. Land isn’t fungible, whereas OTOH nobody cares which specific dollars they use to assuage their conscience while keep their spoils.
And I wasn’t bashing immigrants, I was bashing the hypocrites who pretend to care about them.
No, its as though a persecuted religious minority of pilgrims left their home and founded a colony on Native American land and refuse to give it back. And so do all the current citizens of that nation who reap the spoils and speak hypocritically about “colonizers” and accuse others of “occupation” from the safety the “stolen land” they themselves “occupy”.
You've completely lost the plot. The OP complained about precisely that form of demand that Americans give back stolen land:
"Everything these days is a genocide, we(white Americans) have to continually apologize and make amends for collective acts of violence in the past (often the very remote past, ie colonization of native lands)"
So clearly there does exist a substantial minority group of people who non-hypocritically want to return stolen land to Native Americans.
Meanwhile, there's another group of people (and I would be among this group) who think that rectifying the injustices of genocidal colonialism through land reclamation is hopeless beyond a certain time window (and, concomitantly, triggers other moral obligations to improve the lives of the victims of past genocides), but that time window obviously is not "yesterday," and many of the land seizures and expulsions for which Israel is responsible have occurred within the last 30 years. You don't get to claim adverse possession on something that happened during the period when the Simpsons was on air.
And, again, there's nothing "hypocritical" about recognizing that genociders can sometimes create unfixable facts on the ground that can only be dealt with by means other than direct restitution of lost property. Obviously, however, the international community has a very strong incentive to not permit that sort of thing to happen very often, else it creates a moral hazard that rogue states like Israel try to squeeze themselves through.
Yes, OP was talking about the ridiculous “stolen land” BS and the hypocrites who “really do” want to give the land back aren’t starting with their own property or their family’s, so no they don’t really want to give it back just like those white morons talking abiut greater representation in their field don’t mean their own jobs, because their hypocrites mouthing platitudes.
I’m glad you don’t think returning land is a good idea but your timetable for when return is unfeasible is completely arbitrary and nonsense because when they talk about “occupation” they mean Jerusalem and Haifa and thats well beyond your Simpsons mark.
And it is hypocrisy when talking about others commiting restitution when one is themsleves guilt of the same “crimes” but doing nothing to redress them besides mouthing platitudes.
Anyone who wants to talk that stolen land shit can start with their own house, car and property. They can be an example to us all or it’s just hypocrisy.
This comment is precisely as sensical as complaining about someone who wants to raise taxes by saying "well, if you're so happy, why don't you pay all your own income to the government, huh?" It's obvious to anyone but a moron (query whether you fall into that category) that people are often willing to take actions as part of a society-wide shift in legal requirements that they are not willing to take as uncompensated volunteers.
No, its not money is fungible, land is not. If one wants to give the spoils of being a “colonizer” back but don’t mean their own property, they do mean someone elses, they are a hypocrite (query whether you fall into that category)
Much like the “sanctuary city” morons who never believed it would impact them personally, then when immigrants were shipped to their city to spread the resource burden they began to change their tune. If one wants open borders start by opening your home. You want to give back “stolen land”, start with your home otherwise, its rank hypocrisy.
I largely agree with you, but sanctuary city just means a city doesn't deport witnesses to crimes for obvious good reasons. It was used/promoted perhaps first by Rudi Guiliani (before he was insane). As someone who thinks that is a reasonable policy and also thinks we should be able to control our own borders (and had no issue with Obama when he was being called deporter in chief by the left), I find it infuriating that people pretend "sanctuary city" = open borders.
Respectfully, it may have once meant just that but with the Trump administration’s push to curb illegal
Immigration, it meant much more. It became a symbol of faux-“resistance” to “authoritarianism”, as though policy just like the Obama admin before & Biden admin later was True Evil. Cities and States making it deliberately harder to secure that border, in effect, incentivizing illegal immigration rather than helping to deter what would become the crisis it is now. So, while I agree that “open border” may be a stretch, not much of one. And the cities that spouted that “ICE=evil” rhetoric certainly changed their tune when they began to share the burden. All the sudden illegal immigration was a real crisis.
Evidently you have some theory as to how "fungibility" is somehow relevant here; I do not. A statewide law giving a 10% share in all land to the local Indian tribe is an obviously different proposal than me personally giving 10% of my (fictional; I don't own any real estate at present) tenancy in common to the local Indian tribe. It's not remotely hypocrisy to support the former but not the latter.
Skipping over the off-topic immigrant bashing here.
Fungibility is an issue because tribes generally want specific land, like the Palestinians (that colonizers have their family's homes on now) not just 10% of whatever crumbs the “concerned” colonizer deigns to break off for them. Land isn’t fungible, whereas OTOH nobody cares which specific dollars they use to assuage their conscience while keep their spoils.
And I wasn’t bashing immigrants, I was bashing the hypocrites who pretend to care about them.