Their circumstances are similar(to me an outsider), a lot of jews after the second world war were against the concept of a jewish state.
I mean the spirit is out of the bottle now, you can't put it back in regards to israel, but i don't think that a jewish state needs to exist an many jews( at least in the 50s) do not think so either. We should fight the reasons that you think that a jewish state is needed, not create a jewish state.
I mean yeah, if it wasn't for the people living there, but you would have to do a genocide to settle people there. i am against settler-colonial countries, all of them. Like i said, make it so that there is no reason for ethonstates, not create them
This is a stupid proposal, we've seen how ethnostates go, for example in Palestine. And like i said, i don't know if roma people want their own state, i can't speak for them.
I live there, it's nice but bavaria is still racist as shit and extremly conservative in many places. I know a lot of bavarians in exile who hate it too.
I am all for depopulating Lichtenstein tho, the only nice people there are already only the foreigners. It is a complete fake country that only exists to make it's elite rich
I have personal reasons for hating that country. But in generall the country is extremly rich and de facto an absolute monarchy . Any attempt at curbing the counts power or even critizing him or his friends will end with all people involved excluded from society and unable to find any normal job. There are corporations in the country that pay illegal wages, where people die or starve and the goverment doesn't do anything because the owner is well connected. All unions in the country are corporate unions. Lichtenstein is extremly racist, towards everyone not very conservative and white or lichtensteinian, speaking the wrong dialect of german will also get you excluded, just not as harsh, there is a paralell society of non lichtensteinians because of that. Their entire wealth comes from having no morals and doing the shadiest banking shit imaginable. I used to imagine getting some WWI artillery and shooting that fucking castle of the Fürst to rubble.
Many Lichtensteiner are good people, i just really wish the country wouldn't exist and were a part of Switzerland, it's deeply cursed.
Aren't Romani people traditionally itinerant/nomadic, though? I don't think that a nation state with borders necessarily makes sense for that. As far as I'm aware there's no known record of the origin (though genetic findings suggest an Indian origin) and whether it was due to forced expulsion from their homeland, whereas we know of several instances of Jews being forcefully driven out of places.
Yeah, but modern jews also don't hava a single origin anymore either. Post WWII many still saw their homelands in europe, like i said for many jews a nationstate also did not make sense.
The main difference I'm getting at, though, is not just the impossibility of finding a Romani homeland, it's that as far as we can tell, the Romani people are nomadic by choice while Jews have historically been driven out of places, so the range of solutions that make sense barely have any overlap. A nation state does make sense for Jews to end the cycle of persecution from when they are a minority in whichever area. For Romani people, who do not have any known historical homeland and have historically willingly embraced the nomadic lifestyle, a better solution would be to look at what disadvantages a lack of a homeland has caused (like lack of security, lack of international representation, lack of sovereignty), and come up with an alternative structure that provides these things while working with their nomadic lifestyle. Honestly, some sort of system like democratic confederalism that is designed to coexist alongside existing nation states (or at least to be capable of it starting out) would be a decent starting point.
You are right that the groups are different, but i don't think that in any way justifies an ethnostate
A nation state does make sense for Jews to end the cycle of persecution from when they are a minority in whichever area.
No, because to found a jewish state you have to literally become a settler-colonial society. And look we have a jewish state and it hasn't ended anti-semitism, for one any jews don't like that a genocidal colony is claiming to be their home, they already have one. Many jews interpreted the homeland in the torah as a spiritual thing rather than a geographical location.
I find your idea for roma interesting, though I honestly think that it really is not our place to debate possible solutions
I don't think it is quite clear-cut as settler colonialism when we know of several occasions where Jews did live in Israel, but were forcibly expelled by some other power, as recently as two millenia ago. This isn't like colonizing the Americas where a group of humans went there about 16,500 years ago when it was completely uninhabited, lived more or less completely isolated from the other half of the world, then 16,000 years later some other people come in boats and start murdering people and stealing the land. I think Israel certainly behaves as a settler-colonial state in some respects, but I think they honestly have a valid claim to the land, as do the Palestinians who already live there and don't have a meaningful link to any other successor state that can be implicated for the diasporas.
There were still jews in jerusalem when israel came, and those have a claim, the rest are stllers and should fuck off.
Israel is not a legitimate state, don't paint it as such.
Just because your ancestors 1000 years ago might have lived in palestine does not give you the right to do a genocide to settle a country you have no personal connection to. Israel exists because the US post WWII wanted it to, they prevented people from moving to the US and almost forced them to settle palestine. It is a product of western imperialism not anything else. Israel is murdering the indigen people of palestine and stealing their land. The israeli identity is a complete fabrication.
I'm not claiming that they have the right to displace Palestinians, I explicitly said the Palestinians also have a right to live there. I don't think settler colonial is very clear cut because they do have a historical claim to the land, however distant it might be -- but I think it is accurate to say that they are an apartheid regime where Israelis have power over the Palestinians. I think it should also be clarified that every western country refused large amounts of Jewish refugees, and given the horrid treatment that we gave many immigrant groups around that time and how we ended up rehabilitating large amounts of Nazis and recruiting them into important government positions, I don't think that having the majority of the Jewish population migrate to the US would have ended well. Like, if you think our neo-nazis are bad in our timeline, imagine how much worse it'd be in that timeline. It would literally be safer in Europe.
In any case, there is absolutely no easy answer to this conflict. It'll still be ongoing 50 years from now if humanity isn't wiped out.
What's the maximum amount of generations removed that you'd say preserves their claim? Assuming an involuntary displacement that is supported by historical records.
How many replacements are needed exactly? Cause Babylon has not been around for a hot minute and Persia already built up the Jewish people again. Does something like that literally create a land claim hoisted upon all peoples in the region thereafter? Hell we wanna talk land claims, the Torah claims God gave them the land inhabited by the Canaanites who Moses' followers gladly massacre and genocide. So any decedents upon descendants of ancient Canaan should have a claim to the land then as well.
Beyond that, we are talking about the Bronze age ffs. Who counts as the successors? The people who live there? anyone who practices Judaism? Anyone who can be traced broadly back to genetics of people who lived in the region at some point? People who have diffused culturally and became new groups and cultures and ethnicities whose identity became distinct from some people who may be related to them 3000 years ago? Literally everyone aside from some groups in Africa are the product of migration and genetic diversification. By the logic of Israel, people with some Egyptian blood have a claim to Sub-Saharan Africa.
Ancient land claims that themselves are built on a self-proclaimed act of extermination are not moral arguments nor valid as international law.
As far as I'm aware the Amorites who led the original Babylonian Empire are completely gone and were absorbed into other groups, so not much we can do for that one. The Assyrians that took over have not had a homeland in some time, but are still a distinct ethnic group, there are apparently some working with Rojava (and I know Ocalan mentioned them specifically in Democratic Confederalism) so it appears that at least some of them are going for an alternative to a nation state. The Persians, of course, have the modern state of Iran. Some relatively recent DNA studies found that the descendants of the Canaanites are the people of Lebanon. So all of these groups either no longer exist as a distinct ethnic identity, or exist in the same place but with no state, or have a modern nation state already. For better examples you'd want groups that exist today as distinct ethnic groups, were involuntarily displaced, have no modern state, and have some historically documented homeland, since those would be directly comparable.
Generally people are referring to people who are ethnically Jewish, as in Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews as well as a number of smaller groups. DNA studies have shown these groups actually do have predominantly Middle Eastern ancestry. In any case, Israel is the closest area to a homeland that can be claimed, and the alternative is continued persecution of the Jewish people, which after WW2 had a close call with complete extermination (and in fact were completely wiped out from some states). I'm really not asking more than for you to acknowledge that this is not the clear cut "palestine good, israel bad" that everyone seems to think it is. There are quite a few aspects of what Israel is doing that are more clearly bad, but this can't be generalized to their entire existence.
Honestly though, the whole idea of solving this by granting them a nation state seems more like it was an easy way to "solve" the issue without confronting the larger problem of how stateless minority groups enjoy very little security.
Except none of that haplogroups and genetic history amounts to a land claim that means a damn. The people who stole it dont exist anymore, people live there now with no connection to whatever fucking crimes happened in the bronze age
And it is clear cut. One state is committing genocide right now, one is not. Michael Brooks said all that must be said on the matter, no ancient land claims or debts matter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62I61kBahNY
it can and is generalized to its entire existence cause it only came to be in 1948.
I don't know nearly enough about Roma people to have any kind of opinion on that, honestly. Any take I would have would just be reactionary and pointless.
Shouldn't we also have a Roma state then?
Their circumstances are similar(to me an outsider), a lot of jews after the second world war were against the concept of a jewish state.
I mean the spirit is out of the bottle now, you can't put it back in regards to israel, but i don't think that a jewish state needs to exist an many jews( at least in the 50s) do not think so either. We should fight the reasons that you think that a jewish state is needed, not create a jewish state.
Yes. How would you like southern Germany?
I mean yeah, if it wasn't for the people living there, but you would have to do a genocide to settle people there. i am against settler-colonial countries, all of them. Like i said, make it so that there is no reason for ethonstates, not create them
This is a stupid proposal, we've seen how ethnostates go, for example in Palestine. And like i said, i don't know if roma people want their own state, i can't speak for them.
(Bavaria is still shit tough)
Have you been? It's fucking beautiful (not talking about Bavarians tho)
I live there, it's nice but bavaria is still racist as shit and extremly conservative in many places. I know a lot of bavarians in exile who hate it too.
I am all for depopulating Lichtenstein tho, the only nice people there are already only the foreigners. It is a complete fake country that only exists to make it's elite rich
What did Liechtensteiners do though? Germany at least earned this
I have personal reasons for hating that country. But in generall the country is extremly rich and de facto an absolute monarchy . Any attempt at curbing the counts power or even critizing him or his friends will end with all people involved excluded from society and unable to find any normal job. There are corporations in the country that pay illegal wages, where people die or starve and the goverment doesn't do anything because the owner is well connected. All unions in the country are corporate unions. Lichtenstein is extremly racist, towards everyone not very conservative and white or lichtensteinian, speaking the wrong dialect of german will also get you excluded, just not as harsh, there is a paralell society of non lichtensteinians because of that. Their entire wealth comes from having no morals and doing the shadiest banking shit imaginable. I used to imagine getting some WWI artillery and shooting that fucking castle of the Fürst to rubble.
Many Lichtensteiner are good people, i just really wish the country wouldn't exist and were a part of Switzerland, it's deeply cursed.
Aren't Romani people traditionally itinerant/nomadic, though? I don't think that a nation state with borders necessarily makes sense for that. As far as I'm aware there's no known record of the origin (though genetic findings suggest an Indian origin) and whether it was due to forced expulsion from their homeland, whereas we know of several instances of Jews being forcefully driven out of places.
Yeah, but modern jews also don't hava a single origin anymore either. Post WWII many still saw their homelands in europe, like i said for many jews a nationstate also did not make sense.
The main difference I'm getting at, though, is not just the impossibility of finding a Romani homeland, it's that as far as we can tell, the Romani people are nomadic by choice while Jews have historically been driven out of places, so the range of solutions that make sense barely have any overlap. A nation state does make sense for Jews to end the cycle of persecution from when they are a minority in whichever area. For Romani people, who do not have any known historical homeland and have historically willingly embraced the nomadic lifestyle, a better solution would be to look at what disadvantages a lack of a homeland has caused (like lack of security, lack of international representation, lack of sovereignty), and come up with an alternative structure that provides these things while working with their nomadic lifestyle. Honestly, some sort of system like democratic confederalism that is designed to coexist alongside existing nation states (or at least to be capable of it starting out) would be a decent starting point.
Incidentally, I also just learned that the Soviet Union tried to essentially create a Romani SSR, but it didn't really work very well.
You are right that the groups are different, but i don't think that in any way justifies an ethnostate
No, because to found a jewish state you have to literally become a settler-colonial society. And look we have a jewish state and it hasn't ended anti-semitism, for one any jews don't like that a genocidal colony is claiming to be their home, they already have one. Many jews interpreted the homeland in the torah as a spiritual thing rather than a geographical location.
I find your idea for roma interesting, though I honestly think that it really is not our place to debate possible solutions
I don't think it is quite clear-cut as settler colonialism when we know of several occasions where Jews did live in Israel, but were forcibly expelled by some other power, as recently as two millenia ago. This isn't like colonizing the Americas where a group of humans went there about 16,500 years ago when it was completely uninhabited, lived more or less completely isolated from the other half of the world, then 16,000 years later some other people come in boats and start murdering people and stealing the land. I think Israel certainly behaves as a settler-colonial state in some respects, but I think they honestly have a valid claim to the land, as do the Palestinians who already live there and don't have a meaningful link to any other successor state that can be implicated for the diasporas.
There were still jews in jerusalem when israel came, and those have a claim, the rest are stllers and should fuck off.
Israel is not a legitimate state, don't paint it as such.
Just because your ancestors 1000 years ago might have lived in palestine does not give you the right to do a genocide to settle a country you have no personal connection to. Israel exists because the US post WWII wanted it to, they prevented people from moving to the US and almost forced them to settle palestine. It is a product of western imperialism not anything else. Israel is murdering the indigen people of palestine and stealing their land. The israeli identity is a complete fabrication.
I'm not claiming that they have the right to displace Palestinians, I explicitly said the Palestinians also have a right to live there. I don't think settler colonial is very clear cut because they do have a historical claim to the land, however distant it might be -- but I think it is accurate to say that they are an apartheid regime where Israelis have power over the Palestinians. I think it should also be clarified that every western country refused large amounts of Jewish refugees, and given the horrid treatment that we gave many immigrant groups around that time and how we ended up rehabilitating large amounts of Nazis and recruiting them into important government positions, I don't think that having the majority of the Jewish population migrate to the US would have ended well. Like, if you think our neo-nazis are bad in our timeline, imagine how much worse it'd be in that timeline. It would literally be safer in Europe.
In any case, there is absolutely no easy answer to this conflict. It'll still be ongoing 50 years from now if humanity isn't wiped out.
They don't have a historical claim. It does matter how distant it is.
What's the maximum amount of generations removed that you'd say preserves their claim? Assuming an involuntary displacement that is supported by historical records.
How many replacements are needed exactly? Cause Babylon has not been around for a hot minute and Persia already built up the Jewish people again. Does something like that literally create a land claim hoisted upon all peoples in the region thereafter? Hell we wanna talk land claims, the Torah claims God gave them the land inhabited by the Canaanites who Moses' followers gladly massacre and genocide. So any decedents upon descendants of ancient Canaan should have a claim to the land then as well.
Beyond that, we are talking about the Bronze age ffs. Who counts as the successors? The people who live there? anyone who practices Judaism? Anyone who can be traced broadly back to genetics of people who lived in the region at some point? People who have diffused culturally and became new groups and cultures and ethnicities whose identity became distinct from some people who may be related to them 3000 years ago? Literally everyone aside from some groups in Africa are the product of migration and genetic diversification. By the logic of Israel, people with some Egyptian blood have a claim to Sub-Saharan Africa.
Ancient land claims that themselves are built on a self-proclaimed act of extermination are not moral arguments nor valid as international law.
As far as I'm aware the Amorites who led the original Babylonian Empire are completely gone and were absorbed into other groups, so not much we can do for that one. The Assyrians that took over have not had a homeland in some time, but are still a distinct ethnic group, there are apparently some working with Rojava (and I know Ocalan mentioned them specifically in Democratic Confederalism) so it appears that at least some of them are going for an alternative to a nation state. The Persians, of course, have the modern state of Iran. Some relatively recent DNA studies found that the descendants of the Canaanites are the people of Lebanon. So all of these groups either no longer exist as a distinct ethnic identity, or exist in the same place but with no state, or have a modern nation state already. For better examples you'd want groups that exist today as distinct ethnic groups, were involuntarily displaced, have no modern state, and have some historically documented homeland, since those would be directly comparable.
Generally people are referring to people who are ethnically Jewish, as in Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews as well as a number of smaller groups. DNA studies have shown these groups actually do have predominantly Middle Eastern ancestry. In any case, Israel is the closest area to a homeland that can be claimed, and the alternative is continued persecution of the Jewish people, which after WW2 had a close call with complete extermination (and in fact were completely wiped out from some states). I'm really not asking more than for you to acknowledge that this is not the clear cut "palestine good, israel bad" that everyone seems to think it is. There are quite a few aspects of what Israel is doing that are more clearly bad, but this can't be generalized to their entire existence.
Honestly though, the whole idea of solving this by granting them a nation state seems more like it was an easy way to "solve" the issue without confronting the larger problem of how stateless minority groups enjoy very little security.
Except none of that haplogroups and genetic history amounts to a land claim that means a damn. The people who stole it dont exist anymore, people live there now with no connection to whatever fucking crimes happened in the bronze age
And it is clear cut. One state is committing genocide right now, one is not. Michael Brooks said all that must be said on the matter, no ancient land claims or debts matter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62I61kBahNY
it can and is generalized to its entire existence cause it only came to be in 1948.
I don't know nearly enough about Roma people to have any kind of opinion on that, honestly. Any take I would have would just be reactionary and pointless.