Ask Lemmy

I never said white genocide. That's the problem here - you're talking just like a fascist, but from a position of the oppressed. Which is to say, you're talking just like a fascist

You're talking about taking the land (soil) back for the indigenous people (blood). You're not talking about benefiting people. You're not talking about fixing problems and making life better.

Just taking. Take our county back. Take our land back. Drive out the invaders. Sound familiar?

The thought "white genocide" genuinely never crossed my mind in all of this. Because I'm not a fascist. I just know when you combine racial lines and fascism, you're talking ethno-state, which always means genocide. In this case, who gets genocided? Everyone but the in-group, starting with the most disadvantaged and physically identifiable and working inwards from there.

Instead I think of just people, all living in an oppressive system. I don't care that some are less oppressed, I don't care about what was taken from people generations ago or who "deserves" the land. I care about reducing the oppression. Human dignity.

Not what we can take, what we can give and what must be taken to give that to the people. All the people.

You're framing this just like the Nazis do, it doesn't matter if you flip the "in group" to be a minority or more oppressed group. You're still using the same framework, which there is a descriptive term for: Fascism

If they started genociding white people it would be though. History is not a zero sum game where it's OK for the natives to do to white people what they did to the natives. You can't exactly repatriate people that were born and raised somewhere to a country / continent that they have no ties to besides distant ancestors. I'm not saying land back is inherently genocidal but what actually is a way to go about it that doesn't involve an ethnic cleansing?

The evidence we have suggests that Ancient Israelite culture evolved from Ancient Canaanite civilization. The earliest documentation of Israel as a people was dated around 1208 BCE in Egypt. So if we were rolling it back to see who is first, evidence suggests we give it to anyone with direct link to the ancient Canaanites regardless of their religious affiliation which includes modern day Israelis and Palestinians.

I personally don't see it as a very complicated question. Historical wrongs exist for all people, so we either need to right every single one and upend everything around us now or we need to start burying hatchets and working together on the land we share now while reconciling those past wrongs.

Why would they give it back to the Greeks? To my knowledge, the Greeks took the land they controlled in modern day Turkey from Persia under Alexander the Great.

But that does support the point: If we were to "give the land back" in Turkey, who gets it? We have recorded history in the area, but what about the time before recorded history considering we only have about 6,000 years to go on Globally and our species has been around for about 300,000 years? Even if we put that aside, who's recorded history do we go on? Does that mean those with oral histories get the shaft? If we find any point where the indigenous group conquered and killed another for the land, is their claim void?

I think this idea is only complicated when we take the "land back" route instead of the "working together to make things better" route.

Same