comparing these in any meaningful way is kinda a stretch.
Palestine was a legit sovereign nation recognized by its neighbors and the world through Britain making it so. Then Britain after making it a nation decides 20 years later to split it up
Natives on the other hand were not a uniform nation, did not have meaningful international recognition and were colonized and effectively destroyed before the Civil War
While yeah, 2 genocides are both genocides with putting ethnic minorities on small “reservations”, they don’t really go beyond that imo.
Palestine has FAR larger geopolitical consequences
this image specifically shows the US, and the other counties didn't care about how the natives were treated by other imperial powers, mostly the same as the US obvi.
A lot of what is now the United States was never really colonized during the time that it was still part of France or Spain or Mexico's empire. Arizona, Utah, Colorado, large parts of Texas/Oklahoma and th plains states were largely de facto Native land until the Americans showed up.
:wut: How does anything you listed make them different? They're both pretty cut and dry land theft. Other nations interacted and traded with indigenous American nations up until the US settlers were in large enough numbers to start forcing people off their land. I don't think any differences really make this graphic wrong.
comparing these in any meaningful way is kinda a stretch.
Palestine was a legit sovereign nation recognized by its neighbors and the world through Britain making it so. Then Britain after making it a nation decides 20 years later to split it up
Natives on the other hand were not a uniform nation, did not have meaningful international recognition and were colonized and effectively destroyed before the Civil War
While yeah, 2 genocides are both genocides with putting ethnic minorities on small “reservations”, they don’t really go beyond that imo.
Palestine has FAR larger geopolitical consequences
Didn’t the French, Spanish, and Russians also do a fair amount of land theft in North America?
this image specifically shows the US, and the other counties didn't care about how the natives were treated by other imperial powers, mostly the same as the US obvi.
the image shows the western half being native land (as in not stolen) in 1850 when a lot if it would've been taken by Spain and then Mexico
A lot of what is now the United States was never really colonized during the time that it was still part of France or Spain or Mexico's empire. Arizona, Utah, Colorado, large parts of Texas/Oklahoma and th plains states were largely de facto Native land until the Americans showed up.
That's true. But the Spanish definitely has a precense in California for example
:wut: How does anything you listed make them different? They're both pretty cut and dry land theft. Other nations interacted and traded with indigenous American nations up until the US settlers were in large enough numbers to start forcing people off their land. I don't think any differences really make this graphic wrong.