- cross-posted to:
- politics
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- politics
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
“We were at a village that Israeli settlers had destroyed, they had destroyed the school, they had destroyed that village, and we were just looking at it,” said Khanna, a progressive lawmaker from California in the U.S. House of Representatives.
“And these hoodlums come in with machine guns – M4, an American-made machine gun – and they detain us. They block off the road. And then they call the IDF and the IDF is on their side, not on the side of the Americans,” Khanna said, referring to the Israeli military.
An aide to Khanna who was in the group, Cameron Kasky, said they were held for more than an hour and made appeals to the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem for help. A group of officers who appeared to be police eventually intervened, leading to their release, Kasky said.
Native American here: yes they do not like being called “settlers” they prefer “real white Americans”
We’re referring to two different meanings here.
A settler, as in, someone who comes to settle land that has been emptied through war, disease, genocide, etc. This one, we see as negative
And settler in opposition to native. Of course in that sense it’s not negative. At least, I, as a settler, don’t see it as negative, it’s just a neutral descriptive and useful term.
Please explain how 2. is any different from 1., as the “war”, the diseases and the genocide all happened in direct opposition to the natives?
There’s nothing neutral about the term.
E: Also, curious how the settler explains to the native, what the term settlers means.