The Israeli army fired artillery shells containing white phosphorus, an incendiary weapon, in military operations along Lebanon’s southern border between 10 and 16 October 2023.
The Israeli army fired artillery shells containing white phosphorus, an incendiary weapon, in military operations along Lebanon’s southern border between 10 and 16 October 2023.
little clarification here - humanity isnt native to anywhere other than Africa. the people that were in the American continents prior to the arrival of Europeans might not have taken boats to get there - though some clearly did as there were multiple waves of settlement over a few thousand years.
if their ancestors walked over the land bridge during the ice age and that somehow qualifies them as natives, then what about the ones whose ancestors took a boat across where the land bridge used to be and sailed down the coast? if they qualify, then why dont the people whose European ancestors took boats qualify as native? is it because the last round of people had vastly superior technology? because we speak the same languages they did? because we’re the same ethnicity they were? is this a racism argument? I didnt get that memo.
is this a branch of the “noble savage” theory? there was a lot of war between various tribes in North America - generational warfare usually, where one tribe would traditionally raid another for resources or for women. this is well documented and had been occurring for as long as anyone could remember - long, long before the reintroduction of the horse into North America.
I’d say you’re native if when you arrive, there’s not already people living there. They walked the land bridge, found no other humans and then settled. Europeans sailed across the sea and found the native Americans and then continued to slaughter and pillage them for their own gain.
I’m not even sure how you’re comparing the 2 events.
But these groups and people weren’t the same people as the ones that walked across the land bridge. The cultures had long since diverged and were different. Wars had been fought. Whole groups died or merged. And if you go back a little further, they are all closely related. I don’t think the point is that the slaughtering and pillaging was OK. It is that you cannot have a good faith argument on fixing current problems by trying to focus only on arbitrary time periods to claim certain privileges. I am very much in favor of doing more to make the lives of the native americans better, but I also will not make the argument that descendants of Europeans or Africans have no claim to the land there either. Because to do so is not in good faith and just ignores reality. Any time period you pick to decide who has a claim to a place is arbitrary. We cannot change the past. We can only change the future (but we are limited by the confines of the present).
I think it’s mostly the uther lack of consideration for the locals at the time. Europeans went there with the explicit aim to “conquer” and loot a continent that was inhabited by dozens if not hundreds of societies. They went there, killed, raped and enslaved hundreds of thousands of people. Can’t imagine to hear anyone defend that kind of behavior.
This person really woke up and typed 3 paragraphs on the justification of manifest destiny
Good morning! Wash the land with blood every day!