It always works out fine for them. I don't know why anybody says imperialism or colonialism are bad or destructive, seems to me that Britain and France and Spain and Portugal and the Dutch are all doing fine. Really weird how maps of their empires seem to overlap a lot with parts of the world that currently or recently experienced a lot of, idk let's call it "troubles?" They must be dumb or smth
They weren’t countries. They became countries when the colonizers (and I’m using that term as accurately as possible) lumped together into managed regions and then told them they were countries with their own governments and flags. It was all “We’re going to conquer these people and these people and these people, then put Governor Fitzroy, nephew to the Prince, in charge of all of it with a big army to back him up.” Then they wrote laws and made flags and all the happy crappy stuff they do. Then they lost WWII (because pretty much everyone except for the US lost WWII), and said “you’re on your own.”
They turned former colonies into artificial countries with governments that all but guaranteed factionalism.
There was always war, and there always will be war. But the specific type of war we’re seeing in former colonies is because of the post-colonial situation.
Exactly and when they drew the borders of those artificial nations, they had a strange talent for choosing two or more peoples who would otherwise never have formed a nation together voluntarily, so they still don´t get along today and probably never will.
Palestine is not a religious entity, and have been in favor of religious coexistence since the very beginning. It is the Zionist state that is exclusive of other religions by design.
Israel is by its own definition the Zionist state founded on religious exclusivism. An ethnocentric state in a land inhabited by other religions and ethnicities. It should absolutely be taken down.
as I already said above, it is because it is an ethnoreligious state that excludes people of other ethnicities (Arabs, Africans, etc) and other religions (Muslims, Christians, etc). It has engaged in massacre and forced expulsion of those people, so it must be taken down and the genocide must cease.
No it is not their business to genocide ethnic and religious minorities lmao. Would you say the same about the Nazis too? was the US justified in genociding native americans also? ridiculous.
Forced expulsion is dtill inside their own country
yes it is. I hope you dont mean that this makes it better. I may be failing to understand this genocide sympathizer logic.
So you take them down with a genocide yourself?
No. The only one committing genocide at the moment and in this conflict is Israel itself.
When they’re celebrating the killing of civilians at a dance party, or the beheading of babies, it is a problem. Religion is the cancer that keeps that entire region either at war, or the brink of war
You’re gonna have to substantiate that claim. Show me evidence of Palestinians celebrating “killing of civilians at a dance party, or the beheading of babies”. Without evidence, your claim is to be ignored.
Not for the Jews. Zionism and Islamic anti-Semitism and the violence from these movements predates the British trying to find a solution. However mishandled it was. They are two ideologies fundamentally opposed to one another, and they are incapable of coexistence in their current forms.
Every should know about the Sykes–Picot Agreement, it’s one of those treaties/laws that have long lasting consequences in the current world (same with ww2 agreements).
The Palestinians are descendants of the ancient canaanites. Most of the people in that region never left they just changed their religion at some point. This hasn’t always been happening, in Ottoman times Christians Jews and Muslims peacefully coexisted in the region.
I mean, kinda? They’re also heavily descended from 7th Century AD Arabic conquerors, but yes, many other natives may have adopted Arabic culture, language and religion at that time.
But Jewish culture is also derived from the Canaanite culture, with arguably more overlap. Jewish culture in the region can be traced back to at least the 9th Century BC, with the literal Kingdom of Israel. So the argument of “Well who was there first?” does not necessarily favor the Palestinians over the Israelis.
This has always been happening though. It’s not like the Ottomans took over the region peacefully. It’s been conquered and re-conquered by Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans…
Palestinian culture is also derived from canaanite culture. Arabs are semitic people and follow abrahamic traditions. When places get conquered usually the ruling class changes but the lower class people stay in their homes and just change language/religion/identity. Usually the new rulers don’t try to completely wipe out the inhabitants of their new land the way israel is doing with Palestinians
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights press release outlining large scale targeting of peaceful protesters, women, children, people with disabilities, paramedics and journalists by Israeli snipers: ohchr.org/…/no-justification-israel-shoot-protest…
BBC report on the killing of Christian American-Palestinian journalist and subsequent attack of her funeral: youtube.com/watch?v=y11CVGz7toM
Even animals patrol and defend their territory. Why should human be any different? If anything else, borders are an improvement over constant skirmishes and raids where two different ethnic groups meet.
EDIT: Interesting how you completely ignored the “Borders are a solution to constant ethnic clashes” part of my comment
Freedom good! Borders allow different systems or countries to exist so you have the FREEDOM to choose the one you like the most instead of there being only one option. Borders good!
I´ll assume you are just uninformed and not a hypocrite. Refugees get stuck, pushed back and even killed at borders all around the world when trying to choose the country they like the most. Borders bad!
The reason ethnic clashes are happening in the first place, is because there was not enough intermingling between neighbors, in big part because people like you thought humans aren’t smarter then animals and should be separated.
Humans aren’t smarter than animals because we are animals. We’re also not smarter than non-human animals either, as evidenced by our self-destructive behavior.
Comeone you are going around all “Hurr durr humans aren’t smarter than animals, we are so self-destructive” that’s an edgelord position if I’ve ever seen one
You know what I was typing up a whole argument about how the “if you are self-destrucive you are dumb and therefore an animal” logic is flawed but then I remembered I am on the internet and get to do this fun thing instead:
Humans aren’t smarter than animals because we are animals. We’re also not smarter than non-human animals either, as evidenced by our self-destructive behavior.
Great let’s dissect this then:
Firstly you are for some reason making the choice to ignore the common meaning of “animal” meaning (very broadly) non-human lifeform. Yeah yeah go ahead and nitpick about mushrooms and plants if you want to. Showing that you see animals and humans in the same category.
The first sentence thus becomes a tautology because you moved the goalpost to include humans in the term “animal”. I bet you felt clever about that. Just to then go ahead and make that same distinction but with more words “non-human animal”. Because, turns out, its a useful distinction to make. I’m gonna go ahead and ignore your ignoring of this and use “animal” to refer to “non-human animals”.
You claim that humans aren’t smarter than animals, which you further claim to be evidenced by the “self-destructivene behaviour” humans display. So you are at least saying that the level of intellect is dependent on the behaviour, and thus the actions, of a species. I’m now claiming that you putting animals and humans in the same catgegory stems from this false equivalence of intellects, which by your logic is dependent on the actions.
So yes, while you never explicitly said that “being an animal is a consequence of lack of intellect or of an action” your logic and phrasing make it clear that you see animals and humans in the same category, and the reason for that is the, according to you, equivalent level of intellect and actions.
Edit: I am forgetting my nettiquette again, so sorry!
Firstly you are for some reason making the choice to ignore the common meaning of “animal” meaning (very broadly) non-human lifeform.
That’s not a common meaning, it’s the morons’ meaning.
Showing that you see animals and humans in the same category.
As does anyone with a brain.
then go ahead and make that same distinction but with more words “non-human animal”
Are you braindead?
So you are at least saying that the level of intellect is dependent on the behaviour, and thus the actions, of a species.
No. Go back to 1st grade English, your ability to derive meaning from words is simply not there. Everything following this fallacy isn’t even worth talking about.
The word “animal” comes from the Latin animalis, meaning ‘having breath’, ‘having soul’ or ‘living being’. The biological definition includes all members of the kingdom Animalia. In colloquial usage, the term animal is often used to refer only to nonhuman animals.
So your argument here is basically “But I have big brain because I use the correct word as defined in biological science as opposed to the morons that use language colloquaillyon the internet”. Good job.
Showing that you see animals and humans in the same category.
As does anyone with a brain.
I mean yeah sure they are in the same category in the sense that both have evolved from the same basis. But humans have evolved further than animals, which is why there is commonly a distinction made between humans and animals without having to say non-human animals.
Examples are:
animal cruelty
animal rights
animal shelter
Obviously none of these relate to humans, because everyone with a brain uses the term animal to mean life that is not human.
Are you braindead?
It sure feels that way when I talk to you, because you are draining my will to live.
behaviour [SIC]
Imagine not knowing that behaviour is a valid spelling of the word everywhere but the place that had to drop the letter U from words to feel special. Time to make a few more rounds in the spelling bee
This sentence alone tells me you don’t have an inkling of a proper thought in your smooth marble of a brain. A biologist would punch you for saying that - I’m being nice, here.
Once again, your argumentation is fallacious and based on fallacious reasoning. I won’t address this moronic waste of time.
I am again surprised that we apparently are supposed to be talking with rigorous scientific accuracy, here in a thread about terror attacks, between people that are, obviously, not biology scientists.
What I obviously meant was that humans have evolved to have the capacity to do things that no other species can do.
Once again, your argumentation is fallacious and based on fallacious reasoning
Interesting how you ignore the reality of constant ethnic clashes and raids inside the borders of many african nations and also across borders e.g. Armenia vs Azerbaijan, Kosovo vs Serbia, Russia vs Ukraine or… Palestine vs Israel.
The animals argument is bad. We are animals and the idea is to refrain of our bad instincts in favour of the greater good most of the time.
That being said abolition of borders is a very bad idea, a very basic visit of human history will squash any misplaced idealism regarding that subject.
That also being said immigration is most of the time a good idea as long as you put a consideratr effort into integration for your newly minted citizens.
Now I realize most of those are opinions without substance, the idea is to realize where people push back and why before backing them up.
Britain has planted the seeds of hatred and bloodshed in the middle east and is now acting as if it has no responsibility towards resolving the conflict.
It is hard to watch the British media coverage of this war acting all outraged and surprised by the violence while being proud of their historical imperial inheritance .
Britain and France are responsible for such an enormous fuck up in Asia, Africa and the middle east, past and present, it’s probably impossible to put it in numbers. The US gets bashed a lot (deservedly), but I think those two were planting something way more devastating for generations to come
The Ottoman Empire split after WW1, Israel/Palestine happened in 1948. No one was anticipating Hitler doing genocide in 1919. Britain hadn’t considered a plan to award Israel to the persecuted Jewish population of Europe at that point in time.
The meme is wrong though and should say WW1, not WW2. The creation of the State of Israel has nothing to do with the Holocaust, all of it was planned before WW2.
The Balfour Declaration was in 1917, and Britain began discussing support for the Zionist project in Palestine immediately after declaring war on the Ottoman Empire in 1914. The idea dates back to at least 1896 when Theodore Herzl proposed it as a solution to the “Jewish question” which, itself, was being asked as early as the 1750s.
Alternate caption: “Zionists smuggling in settlers before the British mandate ended to have enough votes to create a State of Israel as a safe haven for Holocaust refugees, then getting populated mostly by Jews fleeing Arab countries out of fear of retaliation for having created the State of Israel a day early and having pushed most Palestinians out by force”
Ashkenazim have European surnames because Europeans literally forced them unto Jews. Austro-Hungary, Russian Empire - both had policies for giving Jews “local” surnames (for taxation purposes). It’s how you get Jews with German surnames in eastern and central Europe (i.e.the ones you have listed), and how you get Jews with Ukrainian and Russian-ish surnames in the appropriate areas (see Abramovich, Litvak)
And they did so in Europe. Which means that people with this family names were Jews coming from Europe to Israel and not from Arabic countries like the comment above claimed.
Interesting info and I’m not arguing against your point, but that source doesn’t address their point at all. The cited source covers recent demographics. The previous user is referring to events that occurred in 1947ish. The time periods are not close enough to be relevant to each other, especially considering the massive changes that occurred throughout that period in the area.
That’s kind of like if someone said that the Caribbean was entirely populated by natives when the Europeans showed up in 1492, and someone responded with demographics from the 1570s after the Spanish had established settlements in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Trinidad, and conquered the Aztecs to dismiss the initial point. The demographics are going to be vastly different. It kind of sheds doubt onto your rebuttal since there seems to be a logical disconnect.
Does anyone have any sources on the demographics right before the British invited Jewish people to move to the Levant?
Yeah, genocide turned out to be much better alternative right?
Either way, the Ottoman empire was on its way out, and the Arabs sought to establish a United state. So whatever the ottomans were doing is irrelevant.
Add comment