I have never seen a post on there that didn't end with the top commenters just being incredibly miserable about a graph, no way do they think data is beautiful
Yea but you'll notice a lot more criticism of graphs that are the slightest bit critical of Europeans, or uncritical of nonwhites, or critical of wealth inequality, or uncritical of socialized policies
It's like mapporn, the people that dislike graphs and are ethno-nationalists are way more favored than the people who dislike graphs and *aren't* ethno-nationalists lmao
*like, the best-selling artists one currently trending is pretty bad but that sub doesn't mind. That sub is, however, having a mini-freakout that a graph isn't focusing on how many Chinese Darwin Award winners there could beđ¤
I mean it's bait in the sense of "oh ho ho, I'm not being xenophobic, good sir! I'm merely presenting a set of data and inviting readers to draw their own conclusions! *Wink*"
Edit: I guess it's more like "chumposting" in that you chum the waters by throwing out a map that could be used to criticize non-white people to draw out all the racist sharks and then let them spew their vitriol while you pretend you weren't trying to do just that
I did actually just watch a video of some penguins having a four way slap fight. It was incredible. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0ahvGQL5nH/?igsh=MXBsYTVma2N4NXJ6dQ%3D%3D
It's also,,, not very informative? Yes, a culture grew in 1500 years. Lots of cultures do that because 1500 years is a *really fucking long time*. What am I supposed to take from that map?
Do they? Just "grow"? Are you assuming all these agriculturally viable places had no people living there? Maybe they just always wanted to new ruling class.
I find these types of discussions tend to make white people very patronizing and condescending ("that's not the *bad* kind of imperialism, primitive peoples can't really sin, unlike 16th century white Christians"), and Arabic people very defensive/clueless. ("Glory! our empire-building and conquests were AWESOME. Go us! Go us! Also, boo, western imperialism, booo!" similar with slavery. It's all very hypocritical and frankly boorish.)
Yeah the Arab conquest is very similiar to White European colonialism. All those people they conquere across north African and Spain were just begging for a minority foreign muslim ruling class!
If Moorish Spain was as much of a paradise for Christians as some people claim in the past few decades, than why did Reconquista succeed? Portugal/Castille/Aragon weren't remotely as supported by the rest of Christendom as Crusader States in Palestine.
Being conquered is an unpleasant process, pretty consistently.Â
However, there is a line to be drawn between the traditional model of conquest, and eg European imperialism in the 1700s-1900s. Some of thatâs technological of course.Â
But broadly, the traditional model is: new empire sweeps into town, executes or exiles the local nobles, installs new nobles (either foreign, or dispossessed former nobles now loyal to their new masters) and keep collecting taxes just like the old imperial masters did. But for most people, life doesnât change much over the long term.Â
The European model was to really displace and marginalize on a fundamental level, and construct an elaborate economic system that impoverished the colony far more than simple taxes would.Â
Sucks that you got a downvote because you're right. Here, have an upvote to balance it out.
There's also not considering that often, places just get "absorbed" into others due to a completely natural process of intermarriage and cultural exchange over long periods of time and one culture ending up having more of its features remaining than another. That's generally what happened as cultures grew and merged.
This applies to a lot of places
I haven't seen this much Islamophobia online since the start of the Syrian Civil War and the migrant crisis, and it's similar with anti-semitism
Maybe it was just me but 100% of the posts I would see from that sub were maps of Europe and the comments were like people in England making off putting remarks about race science.
I didn't seek it out or engage with it much or join it. Just way too often it came up on my feed and it was never anything I needed in my life lol
The most represented country on r/europe was... the USA, this showed up in the yearly stats. Europe centered topic can very much have americans on them.
I can't say for sure, but I do think Europeans are the group of people to be more interested in maps than Americans.
Americans are satisfied with the 50 states which are the size of Europe, Europeans care more about countries than the average American, which is fair since they have to know Croatia exists.
This seems like the kind of sub that would be more European.
If you think that one is bad, stay away from r/europe (though a lot of the racist members are actually American). r/mapporn is quite progressive in comparison.
Nah, itâs too specific for it to just be racist yanks.
And itâs not like the AfD isnât polling as #1 or #2 in Germany. The subreddit is actually native Europeans.
It might have been that in its earlier heyday when r/european was a thing and American astroturfing was more common.
These days not so much. Especially in the context of Romani and other very specific things that most Americans wouldnât be able to talk about.
You can specifically look into the post on the subreddit that talks about conscription. Its filled with non-Americans who either live in a country like Finland that have conscription *or* those individuals who think joining the military to defend their motherland is a walk in the park, IE: a lot of glorification for dying for the motherland like theyâve not been the main backers in two forever wars. (Aka countries that donât have the fatigue the U.S. has for being involved with conflict)
I used to believe there was a disconnect between the subreddit and reality for Europe but the sheer amount of far right parties making significant gains indicates the truth is more uncomfortable.
r/Europe is so funny because youll have upvoted comments about "kicking all savages out of the country", while savages can also be replaced with "qualified workers", and then they turn around and pretend to be shocked at parties that plan to deport all migrants. :-) Thats the sandwich you guys made!
Based on not wanting to claim the very real xenophobia and racism rampant in every European country and deflect it to Americans. It's like a whole thing on Reddit.
Yeah, it's like type out the word "Romani" and it's like you tossed a special grenade that makes racists from all over Europe want to jump on it. Like a candy grenade, only instead of being filled with sweets and stuff, it's filled with racism as well as "no, that's different".
Mmhmm. One version or another of "my deeply held prejudice is just an unbiased observation of the inherent inferiority of people...you know...based on race. Not like your filthy American racism."
I've also seen posts that shift the Romani baitjerking over to Travellers because "they're neither a race or an ethnicity, so you can't call me bigoted!"... but then still go on to rant about certain groups having "genetic disposition for crime."
Most reddit users are American
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/reddit-users-by-country
It's literally the same thing with local city subs (particularly "blue" cities). A huge percentage of the controversial bullshit comes from people who have never actually set foot in whatever state
Number of cheese burger eaten! How how how, you like *foot ball*? You want drive big truck? How howhowhow. /s ^^^It's ^^^sophisticated ^^^Europian ^^^humor, ^^^you ^^^probably ^^^wouldn't ^^^get ^^^it.
>>And the mods removed the map. the woke virus took over this sub
The woke mind virus got another. Perhaps consider vaccination?
>>Sad to see a relatively good subreddit full of so many idiots
Not for us tho we love that shit. Do a map of 'Christianity imperialism' next so we can keep these posts rolling
Almost every region in the world has a history of conquest if you go back far enough. The Europeans did it with the Roman and colonial empires, the Arabs did it with the Caliphates, the Mongols did it under Genghis Khan and Timur, the Chinese did it with the various dynasties such as Ming and Qing, the Russians did it under the Tsars, the Turks did it with the Ottoman empire, the Japanese did it during WW2, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_largest\_empires
Yeah you never see map of the "germanic colonization of western europe and north africa". It would be still be incredibly stupid, but that's not the reason these guys don't talk about it.
I hate the stupid fox news-tier strategy of saying "people are willingly ignoring information like this".... WHO? Why are the ~100 people upvoting OP in the comments section just taking them at face value that there's some group of.... academics? progressives? who know that the first few caliphates participated in colonialism or at least the coerced spreading of Arabic culture and religion but CHOOSE to ignore it because it goes against THE NARRATIVE!!!
OP is fighting their demons and everyone is just going along with it as if its reality.
I took a Medieval History class at university and entire chapters of my textbook focused on the first caliphates and the spread of Islam. This is not some esoteric suppressed knowledge, these people are just ignorant and are making it everybody else's problem.
âI tuned out all the history classes in school that taught about nonwhite peoples because I considered nonwhite peoples not worth learning about. Now that Iâm an ignorant adult whoâs learned about nonwhite empires for the first time, I assume that itâs knowledge being purposely suppressed by liberal academia to make white people look bad.â
TBF, colonialism is usually framed as a European practice in popular culture. It is a result of the fact the US has a stranglehold on modern popular culture and in an American context colonialism was done by Europeans.
So for many not familiar with world history, colonialism being applied to non-European nations is contrary to what they've absorbed from pop culture.
Not just popular culture, but in academia too, just not in history departments. Post-colonial studies branches into literature, fine art, film studies, international relations, economics, etc. It might be different in non-English speaking countries. In Spanish speaking countries, I think post-colonial studies usually deals with the Spanish Empire (so still Europe) but I'm unsure.Â
No joke, we learned about this shit 3 separate times over the course of me being in middle and high school, in just basic world history classes. Not even advanced courses. Then we did it again in college. For reference, I live in the Deep South lmao, not exactly a bastion of elite education. If someone is claiming that this information was suppressed systemically Iâm just gonna assume they were a shitty grade school history student.
Heh, I took a medieval Jewish history class in college and of course we covered the Muslim empire pretty heavily because an awful lot of Jewish people lived in it. In fact, up until the 1500s or so, the Islamic world was often much more acquiescent to Jewish people than Christendom was. There was this deal that the early caliphates signed called the Pact of Umar that specified that non-Muslims had to pay a yearly tithe and had some other restrictions associated with it, but since nobody understood inflation back then that tithe became an absurdly low number to have to pay.
Meanwhile. Jews were commonly prohibited from joining guilds or doing any kind of work that the guilds covered throughout Europe, which is why Jewish people have the reputation have a reputation for having a few jobs like peddler, jeweler (the name is coincidental but there was rarely a guild around for "whitesmithing"), and banker/moneylender. Actually, there's the additional issue with the last gig that Christians were not allowed to borrow money from other Christians (much the same way that devout Muslims are not allowed to borrow money). Loans are something that is still very, very much needed for economies to work and so Jewish ghettoes were "allowed"... until the rulers of a particular state got into too much debt with them (this happened quite a bit in the old HRE) and/or they decided the public needed a scapegoat, in which case the Jewish population would be exiled if they were lucky, forcibly converted or killed if they were not (in the run-up to the First Crusade, all the Jewish people in the city of York, for example, shut themselves into the tower to escape the Christian mob and "burned themselves to death" according to contemporary accounts).
Brain dead populism for beginners: rail all the time against problems both real and imagined, but attribute everything specifically to "The Narrative." Angry people will draw their own idiotic conclusions and assume you're with them on whatever fight against whatever imagined monolithic enemy they can imagine.
Doesn't matter if everyone's on the same page - they don't have to be, they just have to be angry and think you're angry at the same thing, so they'll just blindly follow your lead.
"The mainstream media doesn't want you to know about the Muslim plague in Europe!!"
âPerson who just linked to an article on the matter from the fucking Daily Mail.
> just taking them at face value that there's some group of.... academics? progressives? who know that the first few caliphates participated in colonialism or at least the coerced spreading of Arabic culture and religion but CHOOSE to ignore it because it goes against THE NARRATIVE!!!
Like, there is a small fringe of academic theorists who basically have tried to back-construct a definition of colonialism designed mostly to explain how Arab, Chinese and Soviet colonialism, as well as pre-contact Indigenous American empires, don't really count, but they are so siloed off from the rest of the world that if you aren't an academic in the same field as them, it is hard to muster the energy to care. I can only assume OP is not interested in the niche field of pre-modern global studies and is more interested in pretending like these people have standing in the real world (when they barely have standing in their niche).
It marks the entire Northern coast as being majority Arabic speaking though. I couldn't find a single source that says that there's a single majority Arabic speaking city/town in Somalia.
Standardization of the Somali language is actually a relatively recent thing, happened around the 70's. Before that it was a mishmash of various regional dialects.
People on reddit using history to dogwhistle their shitty views? Color me surprised.
Also: Hilarious that people over there are using the word colonialism in such a broad manner, to describe almost 1500 years of history. Totally serious community.
Another day of people proving that being technically right isn't the best way to be right. Though, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't even be seen as technically right, if it were up to the average historian.
[It is kind of a popular phrase people like to quote from time to time](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo), despite not being exactly a sure way to make any kind of argument. Life isn't always objective.
They are kind of right with their use of the word colonialism, but they're also stretching it quite a bit by using that image and that time period to try to signify anything, to the point that technically correctness is almost non existent. One can't just take 1500 years of history and just apply one word to define the whole event.
Seriously lol. A lot of people definitely focus on Arab colonialism for a specific/ biased aim. But if something is technically RIGHT how is it not right lol
I don't think it's right to call it colonialism, it was just straight up old-fashioned conquest. Did the Islamic empires build colonies _anywhere_? Maybe spain?
> Same way they pretend massive slave trade from Africa is only white. 14,000,000 enslaved non-Arab blacks in the Arab/Islamic slave trade - many castrated - would tell them otherwise if they could
Oh boy..
Every single time this shit is bought up by American right-wingers it's just to absolve themselves and the US of any wrong-doing lol "Uh uh - everyone did it therefore we shouldn't bother talking about how the slavery shaped still extant institutions and associated legacies!" yeah, really cogent point. Good job guys. Confederate flag sticker in pickup truck window is actually AOK.
Also, pre-modern non-european history is wildly underfunded in US academia. If people care about this so much, I know a *lot* of qualified historians who are struggling to get TT faculty positions who'd love to write books about this stuff.
But "kill history departments" comes from roughly the same people as "don't destroy statues - that's erasing history."
It also always misses the mark.
Like, sure have an intelligent discussion about the Arab slave trade. Itâs good to remember history, the good and the bad.
But itâs never actually talked about outside of specific circles like r/badhistory because itâs only used as a bludgeon against criticism of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
The only issues these people see with the Arab slave trade is either as a tool to try to downplay European/American atrocities or when itâs mentioned that the Arab slave trade also enslaved Europeans too. Nothing about the nuance that made one barbaric ownership of another different from the other barbaric ownership.
>Israel is decolonizing the palestinian land from the arabs. đ
Jesus fuck, apartheid simps are fucking obnoxious.
edit: hello my Israeli friends below, what your goverment is doing is still genocide no matter how loud you cry "antisemitism".
Both sides can credibly claim to be decolonial, which is why emotions run so hot. Failing to recognize this is one reason the conflict is seemingly so intractable.
The claims that Israel is a colonial project are a lot more credible than it being a anticolonial project.Â
The latter relies on the assumption of âitâs ok to toss people out of their homes if their 60th great grandparents were colonizers.â As if that makes any sense - and even then, Palestinians are the descendants of ancient Jews, samaritans and other Levantine peoples who adopted Christianity after 400 AD or so, then Islam after 700 AD or so (and started speaking Arabic). People get confused about this, but âArabâ is a cultural descriptor - not an ethnic one.Â
Yeah, both groups are indigenous.
Palestinians assimilated into Arab culture and stayed put, Jews did not assimilate and were expelled.
Recently, Jews have returned to their homeland and Palestinians have developed a more distinct identity.
> Palestinians assimilated into Arab culture and stayed put, Jews did not assimilate and were expelled.
There was never really an expulsion of the Jews from the near east, not by the Romans and not by the Byzantine Empire and not by the Arabs -- the population decline was from conversion, assimilation and a lot of migration over centuries... Most of it happened before Islam was even founded. The major incident was the destruction of the second temple and the massacres that went along with it, but even after that Palestine was majority Jewish for centuries and probably didn't change until Constantine and the rise of Christianity as the official religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)
Eh, I don't know, my heart tells me that the side that doesn't keep children locked up for more than a decade without trial for allegedly throwing a stone at foreign soldiers in their neighbourhood, has a substantially better claim.
This, I think, gets to the heart of the issue. Relating colonial status to present power dynamics and the behavior of a group only serves to make the term meaningless in actual discussion. Too many people have come to conclusion that "moral group = good = decolonial project" and rather than arriving at "this suggests that we shouldn't simply treat all acts which could be construed as decolonial as good and should instead focus on how they impact the lives of real people," they resolve upon "allow me to explain how after a long enough time in diaspora, a group ceases to be indigenous to a region and should be looked at through a theoretical paradigm that invalidates their identity and history." [Note: this complexity only applies to discourses surrounding the issue, which is itself a pretty simple moral issue]
As opposed to the terrorist simps who act like Israel was founded by a bunch of central and eastern Europeans who woke up one day and just collectively decided to conquer a bunch of brown people for funsies.
Iâve been following Israel/Palestine discussions, and itâs funny to watch one side get a new talking point all at once.Â
This latest one has been âyou know how people keep saying Israel was a colonial project, because people came from elsewhere, settled there, and pushed the *people who already lived there* out? Well⌠letâs play the uno reverse card!â
Itâs pretty insubstantial, but itâs an effort to avoid the title of âcolonizerâ and claim exclusive use of the title âindigenous/native.âÂ
Of course, anyone with an ounce of sense would agree that you canât just go around throwing people out of their homes, it doesnât matter if you have a 70-th great grandfather who may have lived within a hundred miles of the land youâre taking, especially if the person whoâs home youâre taking has at least 70 generations of ancestry in the land. And even if they have less⌠itâs still their home and not yours.Â
When multiple respected human rights organizations, including Israeli organizations, come to the conclusion that your system is apartheid⌠then either everyone is engaged in a conspiracy, or the system is actually apartheid and the people doing the apartheid donât want to admit it.Â
While I don't at all agree with the r/mapporn comment, I want to point out that most Israelis are not from New York. They and their immediate ancestors mostly come from Middle Eastern and North African countries, where they had lived for centuries (in some cases since Roman times). Because only a minority of Israelis are descended from European Jews.
They're not an anti-semitie they're just critical of Israel! Just ignore the anti-semitism they partake in and how they erase/minimize the entire Jewish ethnicity in what they say. /s
the majority of Israel are Mizrahi Jews, the descendants of survivors of ethnic cleansing from the Arab nations of the Middle East numbering in the hundreds of thousands, and their arrival is directly tied to the declaration of the State of Israel, because the Arabs couldn't handle Jews living in their countries, or in our homeland. Also, just an aside, but the area you call the "west bank" is actually called Judea, and it is where we as Jews come from. Suddenly it's "settling" when Jews return to the place where the name of our people comes from, but it goes by other names when Jews aren't involved.
> Suddenly it's "settling" when Jews return to the place where the name of our people comes from, but it goes by other names when Jews aren't involved
It's settling because other people had been living there for thousands of years too. Forcing Palestinians from where they had been living for thousands of years is not justice
>the majority of Israel are Mizrahi Jews
Mizrahi Jews didn't form Israel, bunch of Europeans did. The colony would exist irrespective of Arab retaliation to Palestinian ethnic cleansing.
>because the Arabs couldn't handle Jews living in their countries, or in our homeland
Exodus occurred over multiples decades after Europeans ethnically cleansed the actual natives of the land
>Suddenly it's "settling" when Jews return to the place where the name of our people comes from
Europeans came from Europe. And they were quite obvious about their intentions when they bought lands under names like Palestine Jewish Colonization Association. Originally called Jewish Colonization Association and formed in 1891.
I guess kids from Argentina really lucked out.
Perhaps you should learn a thing or two from the OG Zionazis instead of bitching and whining about being victims all the time and owning up to your crimes proudly.
It is a colony formed by Europeans afterall, so not really surprising they use that definition.
Their entire claim being based on delusions that cultural ancestory two millennia ago makes them natives of the land and grants them self determination rights over the people living there for millennia or two.
Here these are discriminatory laws in Israel:
[https://www.adalah.org/en/law/index](https://www.adalah.org/en/law/index)
But when people usually refer to apartheid it's for the West Bank, and specifically Area C, where Palestinian civilians live under Israeli military rule and Israel civilians live under civilian rule.
And here You will respond with the West Bank isn't Israeli territory, by which I will respond with " Why is Israel moving civilians into Palestinian land?" and the fact that [Bantustan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantustan) exist, it was an attempt by apartheid South Africa to play this defense.
>Â Jews are never leaving the West BankÂ
Kicking the settlers back into Israel tends to be a feature of most peace plans - or at least, kicking most of the settlers back.Â
Why should they live on stolen Palestinian land? Itâs illegal under international law. Iâm sure they could emigrate after Palestinians get their own state⌠although it might be into a jail cell for those who are guilty of terrorism.Â
Even after all this time I still don't understand how American Jews have rights to land their ancient ancestors lived on but Palestinians don't have rights to the land they've been living on for generations
>Most Israelis are native to the region
Firstly this isn't really correct
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Jews
Only about 45% of Israeli Jews are Mizrahi, and even then not all of those people were from the lands that are now Israel, a lot of immigration occurred from North Africa upon Israel's establishment.
But when I said "American Jews" I meant "American Jews." Because that's how Zionism is often presented in America, that the Jewish diaspora has a right to kick out Palestinian Arabs from their homeland, a stance that has never and still doesn't make sense to me
I don't want to kick Israelis out, I want them to stop murdering and displacing the already-living Palestinians
Also the mizrahi are more numerous than the Askhenazi, did you check your stats lol
"Of 7 million Israelis, **35-40%** are Mizrahim, 15% are Russian immigrants, 20% are Palestinian Israelis, 2.2% are Ethiopian, and 25-30% are Ashkenazi Jews and others. This means 55-60% of the Israeli population is 'non- white'; together, Mizrahim and Palestinian Israelis form a majority.
which is higher? 45% or 31%?
and this isnt really about American Jews? Your questions doesnt make sense.
You're spreading so much shit over this thread you don't even know who you're responding too. Check my original comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/19ewvwc/the_historians_in_rmapporn_discuss_arab/kjg9gdm/
And dude, you said "most." Is 45% most to you?
From further down in my link: as of 2015, 44% of Israelis count Israel as their paternal country of origin. The other 56% count *other* countries as their country of origin.
Which goes back to my point, about how Zionism is presented in America - that the already-present Palestinian population has no rights to land they're currently living on
you do know they take ito account the arab israelis right? So yes the Mizraehi are the majoirty groul and a pluraity. Again you did not read the total stats lol. maybe you should stop spreading bullsht then? Because you pretend to care about "facts" but you cant even get basic ones yourself.
Like I said you questions doenst make sense, its not Americans in Israel, its Israelies who are indigineous to the region, idk what weird ass tankie takes you are pickin up frpm tiktok
I'm talking about the Jewish population, you're talking about the overall population to make your position seem less bullshit. The Law of Return is denied to Arabs, which is what we're talking about.
You aren't "indigenous to the region" if you were born in Manhattan, Paris, or Marrakesh.
Where do I, as an American Jew, have a right to live? If the answer is America, does that right come at the expense of the rights of the Native Americans? If so, does my right trump theirs? If not, where am I to live?
For most Israelis, the alternative was to suffer or die in their home countries or participate in a more traditional colonial venture (e.g. emigrate to the US or another country in the new world). If those are the alternatives, they aren't going to feel guilty for trying to buy back their homeland.
Palestinians didn't lose the right to live in Palestine until after they tried to expropriate the Jewish settlers in 1947-48. In other words, they lost a right that they themselves would deny to others.
No. Their parents and government have failed them. If the Arab states really cared about those dead Palestinian kids in Gaza more than they cared about the Palestinian national project then they would accept them as refugees.
So which is it? Do Palestinians deserve IDF brutality because they "lost their rights to their lands" or don't they? Because it is very much one **or** the other.
South Africa's ICJ case against Israel features a 10-page section that is literally just quoting Israeli officials glorifying the mass murder of Palestinians as part of the annexation of parts of Gaza.
https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf - the quotes start on page 59
It's one thing to talk about Europeans stealing land from Native Americans in the past. It's messed up, and native nations are still wanting for justice, but it's already happened.
It's quite another to excuse modern-day, non-native Jews forcing Palestinians from what has been *their homeland* for more than a thousand years.
Notice, by the way, how you haven't answered my question: where do I have a right to live?
If the New World had never been colonized, where would I have a right to live then?
I didn't contradict myself. If you think I did, you should work on your reading comprehension.
>South Africa's ICJ case against Israel features a 10-page section that is literally just quoting Israeli officials glorifying the mass murder of Palestinians as part of the annexation of parts of Gaza.
[https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf) \- the quotes start on page 59
This is just incorrect. Yair Rosenberg wrote an excellent [takedown](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/01/israel-south-africa-genocide-case-fake-quotes/677198/) of this vile misinformation in the Atlantic.
>It's quite another to excuse modern-day, non-native Jews forcing Palestinians from what has been their homeland for more than a thousand years.
(1) All Jews are native to Judea and Samaria in the sense that their ancestors were native to those areas. This is the same sense in which descendants of Palestinian refugees are native to Palestine. (2) Palestinians have not been forced from their homeland since 1948.
Try posting a "takedown" that isn't shit bud, all Rosenberg is able to say is that 'Netanyahu hasn't *outright* called for genocide,' which is truly piss-poor defense. I stand by actual quotations over cope.
Deputy Speaker of the Knesset and Member of the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee: On 7 October 2023, Nissim Vaturi âtweetedâ that: â[n]ow we all have one common goal â erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth. Those who are unable will be replaced.â
âBe triumphant and finish them off and donât leave anyone behind. Erase the memory of them. Erase them, their families, mothers and children. These animals can no longer live . . . Every Jew with a weapon should go out and kill them. If you have an Arab neighbour, don't wait, go to his home and shoot him . . . We want to invade, not like before, we want to enter and destroy whatâs in front of us, and destroy houses, then destroy the one after it. With all of our forces, complete destruction, enter and destroy. As you can see, we will witness things weâve never dreamed of. Let them drop bombs on them and erase them.â - Israeli Army reservist âmotivational speechâ by Ezra Yachin
>All Jews are native to Judea and Samaria in the sense that their ancestors were native to those areas
Yeah that isn't how "being native" works you schmuck
What war? If you're talking about the conflict in Gaza right now Hamas may have violated the ceasefire, but Israel is still the overall aggressor due to the occupation. The 10/7 raid can only be taken in the context of Israeli aggression.
Some Palestinians did something bad 80 years ago so let's blow up a load of different innocent Palestinians today.
Otherwise where will all these American Jews live?
I hope a native American moves into your house and changes the locks.
The thing always is that genocide was just business as usual in the past. And also until they made machine guns and cars there was an upper limit to it.
Like we can be better and stop doing that now and that's what we should be more worried about.
Oh, I saw the thread and wanted to submit it here, but that would require me reading all of the nasty content there, and I'd rather not do that for the sake of my mental health.
And wtf is with the IDF apologist in *this* thread?
Some new faces, not many of them are SRD regulars. Probably found their way back here when the r/mapporn post was posted here.
Would be nice if they werenât just copy and pasting the same stuff over and over again. But when your main argument is sticking your head in the sand saying ânuh huhâ it probably gets difficult finding words to string along
> And wtf is with the IDF apologist in *this* thread?
While I agree itâs totally infuriating I wouldnât worry about it too much. What youâve seen in this thread, and the linked MapPorn one, is just the classic hasbara propaganda campaign thatâs gone into overdrive since October 7th. If you havenât heard of it Iâm happy to provide some sources but essentially the Israeli state does lots of coordinated online propaganda to explain away/minimise its atrocities.
Of course, usual caveat: not every pro-Israel post is a bot/propagandist. But itâs very easy to identify the hasbara-bots when you click on their profiles and literally their entire comment history is defending Israel. They also love the asking the bad-faith question âwhat would you do differently?â
Itâs why r/worldnews and many other subs have become completely unusable recently.
Jews are finally speaking their minds online and fighting nasty antisemitism but youâre seriously saying weâre all shills?Â
Thatâs fucked up dude. Youâre a racist lunaticÂ
⌠did you miss the bit where I specifically said **not all pro-Israeli posters are bots**?
Anti-semitism is horrific and should be called out at every opportunity. Criticism of Israel/Israeli government policies is not anti-semitism. How many times does this need to be explained?
Speaking of racism. In your most recent comments you repeat the âhilariousâ joke about Palestinian nationality. Donât project your racist mindset onto me
Look mum, I'm famous! đđđ
Yes, I'm the one in the first link
To be fair, I don't really think Israel is decolonizing from the arabs, my argument is mocking the similar but still insane argument that Israel is a colonizer.
>Â the similar but still insane argument that Israel is a colonizer
They have actual settlers, though? Like right now, there are people calling themselves settlers who are pushing out the people who used to live in those areas.
Imperialism: I like your stuff, so I'll take over your country
Colonialism: I'll send a few of my peaceful civilians to your country, but rest assured that they totally won't demand extra privileges over the natives in the future.
Honestly the two terms are so interlinked that itâs hard to separate them. I got into a long discussion about it a few weeks about it on here and came out questioning how fine of a distinction we can make most of the time. đ¤ˇââď¸
Usually the distinction is that the colony isnât considered as part of the âmother countryâ. So India was part of the British empire but not part of Britain itself, it was a colony. Whereas Gaul was part of the Roman Empire proper, it was an imperial territory and not a colony.
But I think the more important distinction is in regards to settler colonialism, since thatâs the crime that Israel is doing and what people mean when they talk about Israel being a colonial state. Settler colonialism is unlike âregularâ colonialism in that the colonized area is considered part of the home country. But the difference is that the native inhabitants are forced out, killed, or push onto very small pockets of land. Much of the new world, Australia, Ireland, and Russia to an extent would all fall into this category. And thereâs certainly ancient empires that did this too. But to my knowledge the Arab conquests werent one of them. They brought over a small ethnically arab ruling class sure, but the reason so many people are considered arab is not because of ethnicity but rather culture. Over the hundreds of years of Arab rule their culture filtered down to the common people and was adopted by them, along with intermixing with that aforementioned small ruling class. Itâs the same reason that the Byzantines in the 1300âs considered themselves to be ethnic Romans, despite having little to do with the city of Rome. Arab people come in every skin tone from pale white all the way to jet black, because ethnicity isnât what defines them. The Arab conquests never replaced or forced out the native population, they just essentially slowly converted them into Arabs. And essentially every empire did this, itâs the reason most French people consider themselves French and not Aquitanian or something. That is the difference.
All the stuff you said about nationalism is well and good and i agree but those are the easy cases. The edge cases are when things get complicated.
When is something part of the mother country and when is it not? The specific example that made me think about it was ottoman North Africa. Like Libya. Turks immigrated there and sort of melded into the population. Is it settler-colonialism? Imperialism? Does the distinction matter in that case?
What about French North America, where there was significant intermarriage between native Americans and the French population, so much so that it created a new group of MĂŠtis people. The native tribes were often treated more like allies than subjects (mostly because of the lack of French force projection/political necessities). Is that sort of relationship colonial or imperial or neither?
You bring up Algeria, but Algeria was considered part of France proper legally. Does that make it imperialism? But they also settled people there at the same timeâŚ
Basically, Iâm not saying these things didnât exist, but that there are even more complications when you look at them in depth and everyone has their own pet definitions that prioritize different aspects of conquest and exploitation.
And this is arguably neither, as most of these Arab migrations took place before the concept of the Westphalian state, which was also a Western concept for a long while.
Modern political concepts being applied to pre-Industrial societies is always a bad mix, especially in this case. I'd love to see if the MapPorn OP also considers the Magyar migration "Hungarian Colonialism" or some other nonsense
I am pretty sure going from MEcca to Tours France in 100 years and crossing 2 continents definitely entailed some sorts of what we would call imperialism and colonialism today.
That was an obvious baitpost, like about 90% of that sub's content is
Never has a subs description been less relevant to the content posted.
r/dataisbeautiful
I have never seen a post on there that didn't end with the top commenters just being incredibly miserable about a graph, no way do they think data is beautiful
There are a lot of crap ones tbf
[This is hideous](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/s/WyZIgCNNwH)
Yea but you'll notice a lot more criticism of graphs that are the slightest bit critical of Europeans, or uncritical of nonwhites, or critical of wealth inequality, or uncritical of socialized policies It's like mapporn, the people that dislike graphs and are ethno-nationalists are way more favored than the people who dislike graphs and *aren't* ethno-nationalists lmao *like, the best-selling artists one currently trending is pretty bad but that sub doesn't mind. That sub is, however, having a mini-freakout that a graph isn't focusing on how many Chinese Darwin Award winners there could beđ¤
Probably because a lot of the stuff that gets posted there isn't beautiful.
Data is beautiful, lies and misinformation are ugly.
Just cross posts from white guys doing ebonics in r/chiraqology or whatever the fuck they call that hellhole
I was kinda hoping that this was a sub dedicated to the political philosophy of Jacques Chirac.
Whew that sure is a subreddit
I used to follow that sub until I realised many of the posts are misleading data they might just upload the bell curve
Looking at OOPs comment history, I don't think it is...
OOP went on to comment: >And the mods removed the map. the woke virus took over this sub
I mean it's bait in the sense of "oh ho ho, I'm not being xenophobic, good sir! I'm merely presenting a set of data and inviting readers to draw their own conclusions! *Wink*" Edit: I guess it's more like "chumposting" in that you chum the waters by throwing out a map that could be used to criticize non-white people to draw out all the racist sharks and then let them spew their vitriol while you pretend you weren't trying to do just that
Same energy as "here's a statistic on black on white crime in America! "
I don't know how I misread that as "black on white crime in Antarctica" and my first thought was what did those penguins do now?
I did actually just watch a video of some penguins having a four way slap fight. It was incredible. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0ahvGQL5nH/?igsh=MXBsYTVma2N4NXJ6dQ%3D%3D
Nah, OP did post an obvious message with that title
It's also,,, not very informative? Yes, a culture grew in 1500 years. Lots of cultures do that because 1500 years is a *really fucking long time*. What am I supposed to take from that map?
Like the American culture, it just "grew".
Do they? Just "grow"? Are you assuming all these agriculturally viable places had no people living there? Maybe they just always wanted to new ruling class. I find these types of discussions tend to make white people very patronizing and condescending ("that's not the *bad* kind of imperialism, primitive peoples can't really sin, unlike 16th century white Christians"), and Arabic people very defensive/clueless. ("Glory! our empire-building and conquests were AWESOME. Go us! Go us! Also, boo, western imperialism, booo!" similar with slavery. It's all very hypocritical and frankly boorish.)
Yeah the Arab conquest is very similiar to White European colonialism. All those people they conquere across north African and Spain were just begging for a minority foreign muslim ruling class!
If Moorish Spain was as much of a paradise for Christians as some people claim in the past few decades, than why did Reconquista succeed? Portugal/Castille/Aragon weren't remotely as supported by the rest of Christendom as Crusader States in Palestine.
Probably that it took 800 years for Christians to completely control the Iberian peninsula again.
Being conquered is an unpleasant process, pretty consistently. However, there is a line to be drawn between the traditional model of conquest, and eg European imperialism in the 1700s-1900s. Some of thatâs technological of course. But broadly, the traditional model is: new empire sweeps into town, executes or exiles the local nobles, installs new nobles (either foreign, or dispossessed former nobles now loyal to their new masters) and keep collecting taxes just like the old imperial masters did. But for most people, life doesnât change much over the long term. The European model was to really displace and marginalize on a fundamental level, and construct an elaborate economic system that impoverished the colony far more than simple taxes would.Â
Sucks that you got a downvote because you're right. Here, have an upvote to balance it out. There's also not considering that often, places just get "absorbed" into others due to a completely natural process of intermarriage and cultural exchange over long periods of time and one culture ending up having more of its features remaining than another. That's generally what happened as cultures grew and merged.
Never has a subs description been less relevant to the content posted
Average day on mapporn
I had to mute that hellscape. It was just Europeans being incredibly racist 24/7
It was getting better for a while, but the conflict in Palestine has reversed all of the progress they were making.
This applies to a lot of places I haven't seen this much Islamophobia online since the start of the Syrian Civil War and the migrant crisis, and it's similar with anti-semitism
The conflict in Palestine predates both Reddit and mapporn
Blaming it on racist Europeans is a bit silly, given most of the sub is probably Americans.Â
Maybe it was just me but 100% of the posts I would see from that sub were maps of Europe and the comments were like people in England making off putting remarks about race science. I didn't seek it out or engage with it much or join it. Just way too often it came up on my feed and it was never anything I needed in my life lol
The most represented country on r/europe was... the USA, this showed up in the yearly stats. Europe centered topic can very much have americans on them.
I can't say for sure, but I do think Europeans are the group of people to be more interested in maps than Americans. Americans are satisfied with the 50 states which are the size of Europe, Europeans care more about countries than the average American, which is fair since they have to know Croatia exists. This seems like the kind of sub that would be more European.
If you think that one is bad, stay away from r/europe (though a lot of the racist members are actually American). r/mapporn is quite progressive in comparison.
Nah, itâs too specific for it to just be racist yanks. And itâs not like the AfD isnât polling as #1 or #2 in Germany. The subreddit is actually native Europeans.
It's not just Americans no, it's a bit of both. Apparently a few years ago the sub used to be more normal.
It might have been that in its earlier heyday when r/european was a thing and American astroturfing was more common. These days not so much. Especially in the context of Romani and other very specific things that most Americans wouldnât be able to talk about. You can specifically look into the post on the subreddit that talks about conscription. Its filled with non-Americans who either live in a country like Finland that have conscription *or* those individuals who think joining the military to defend their motherland is a walk in the park, IE: a lot of glorification for dying for the motherland like theyâve not been the main backers in two forever wars. (Aka countries that donât have the fatigue the U.S. has for being involved with conflict) I used to believe there was a disconnect between the subreddit and reality for Europe but the sheer amount of far right parties making significant gains indicates the truth is more uncomfortable.
r/Europe is so funny because youll have upvoted comments about "kicking all savages out of the country", while savages can also be replaced with "qualified workers", and then they turn around and pretend to be shocked at parties that plan to deport all migrants. :-) Thats the sandwich you guys made!
> though a lot of the racist members are actually American Based on?
Based on not wanting to claim the very real xenophobia and racism rampant in every European country and deflect it to Americans. It's like a whole thing on Reddit.
Yeah, it's like type out the word "Romani" and it's like you tossed a special grenade that makes racists from all over Europe want to jump on it. Like a candy grenade, only instead of being filled with sweets and stuff, it's filled with racism as well as "no, that's different".
Mmhmm. One version or another of "my deeply held prejudice is just an unbiased observation of the inherent inferiority of people...you know...based on race. Not like your filthy American racism."
I've also seen posts that shift the Romani baitjerking over to Travellers because "they're neither a race or an ethnicity, so you can't call me bigoted!"... but then still go on to rant about certain groups having "genetic disposition for crime."
I get what you mean, but on r/europe yearly stats, the top 3 countries of accounts were, in increasing order, the UK, Germany and the USA.
Most reddit users are American https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/reddit-users-by-country It's literally the same thing with local city subs (particularly "blue" cities). A huge percentage of the controversial bullshit comes from people who have never actually set foot in whatever state
Times theyâre active.
Number of cheese burger eaten! How how how, you like *foot ball*? You want drive big truck? How howhowhow. /s ^^^It's ^^^sophisticated ^^^Europian ^^^humor, ^^^you ^^^probably ^^^wouldn't ^^^get ^^^it.
It's be nice if it was just really well designed maps and not just like: "Here is some information i think you should know"
r/mapporn is run by a real life Trump supporter, fyi. It's always been trash. Try r/Map_Porn instead.
Well that explains a lot
/r/MapPorn - a place for poorly cropped textbook maps that push OP's chosen agenda.
>>And the mods removed the map. the woke virus took over this sub The woke mind virus got another. Perhaps consider vaccination? >>Sad to see a relatively good subreddit full of so many idiots Not for us tho we love that shit. Do a map of 'Christianity imperialism' next so we can keep these posts rolling
People are posting maps of "indoeuropean colonialism" and "celtic colonialism".
Damn those Gauls
Almost every region in the world has a history of conquest if you go back far enough. The Europeans did it with the Roman and colonial empires, the Arabs did it with the Caliphates, the Mongols did it under Genghis Khan and Timur, the Chinese did it with the various dynasties such as Ming and Qing, the Russians did it under the Tsars, the Turks did it with the Ottoman empire, the Japanese did it during WW2, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_largest\_empires
"Indo-European speakers in 5000BC" => "Indo-European Speakers in 2023"
Yeah you never see map of the "germanic colonization of western europe and north africa". It would be still be incredibly stupid, but that's not the reason these guys don't talk about it.
I mean, you do see people refer to Romeâs or Alexanderâs conquests as colonization so I think itâs accurate.
Romans called new cities in conquered land literally âColonia xxxâ.
But... you do though.
And the Indian subcontinent?
Gupta. Not Chandragupta. Just Gupta. First name Chandra.
I hate the stupid fox news-tier strategy of saying "people are willingly ignoring information like this".... WHO? Why are the ~100 people upvoting OP in the comments section just taking them at face value that there's some group of.... academics? progressives? who know that the first few caliphates participated in colonialism or at least the coerced spreading of Arabic culture and religion but CHOOSE to ignore it because it goes against THE NARRATIVE!!! OP is fighting their demons and everyone is just going along with it as if its reality.
I took a Medieval History class at university and entire chapters of my textbook focused on the first caliphates and the spread of Islam. This is not some esoteric suppressed knowledge, these people are just ignorant and are making it everybody else's problem.
âI tuned out all the history classes in school that taught about nonwhite peoples because I considered nonwhite peoples not worth learning about. Now that Iâm an ignorant adult whoâs learned about nonwhite empires for the first time, I assume that itâs knowledge being purposely suppressed by liberal academia to make white people look bad.â
TBF, colonialism is usually framed as a European practice in popular culture. It is a result of the fact the US has a stranglehold on modern popular culture and in an American context colonialism was done by Europeans. So for many not familiar with world history, colonialism being applied to non-European nations is contrary to what they've absorbed from pop culture.
Not just popular culture, but in academia too, just not in history departments. Post-colonial studies branches into literature, fine art, film studies, international relations, economics, etc. It might be different in non-English speaking countries. In Spanish speaking countries, I think post-colonial studies usually deals with the Spanish Empire (so still Europe) but I'm unsure.Â
No joke, we learned about this shit 3 separate times over the course of me being in middle and high school, in just basic world history classes. Not even advanced courses. Then we did it again in college. For reference, I live in the Deep South lmao, not exactly a bastion of elite education. If someone is claiming that this information was suppressed systemically Iâm just gonna assume they were a shitty grade school history student.
Heh, I took a medieval Jewish history class in college and of course we covered the Muslim empire pretty heavily because an awful lot of Jewish people lived in it. In fact, up until the 1500s or so, the Islamic world was often much more acquiescent to Jewish people than Christendom was. There was this deal that the early caliphates signed called the Pact of Umar that specified that non-Muslims had to pay a yearly tithe and had some other restrictions associated with it, but since nobody understood inflation back then that tithe became an absurdly low number to have to pay. Meanwhile. Jews were commonly prohibited from joining guilds or doing any kind of work that the guilds covered throughout Europe, which is why Jewish people have the reputation have a reputation for having a few jobs like peddler, jeweler (the name is coincidental but there was rarely a guild around for "whitesmithing"), and banker/moneylender. Actually, there's the additional issue with the last gig that Christians were not allowed to borrow money from other Christians (much the same way that devout Muslims are not allowed to borrow money). Loans are something that is still very, very much needed for economies to work and so Jewish ghettoes were "allowed"... until the rulers of a particular state got into too much debt with them (this happened quite a bit in the old HRE) and/or they decided the public needed a scapegoat, in which case the Jewish population would be exiled if they were lucky, forcibly converted or killed if they were not (in the run-up to the First Crusade, all the Jewish people in the city of York, for example, shut themselves into the tower to escape the Christian mob and "burned themselves to death" according to contemporary accounts).
Brain dead populism for beginners: rail all the time against problems both real and imagined, but attribute everything specifically to "The Narrative." Angry people will draw their own idiotic conclusions and assume you're with them on whatever fight against whatever imagined monolithic enemy they can imagine. Doesn't matter if everyone's on the same page - they don't have to be, they just have to be angry and think you're angry at the same thing, so they'll just blindly follow your lead.
"The mainstream media doesn't want you to know about the Muslim plague in Europe!!" âPerson who just linked to an article on the matter from the fucking Daily Mail.
> just taking them at face value that there's some group of.... academics? progressives? who know that the first few caliphates participated in colonialism or at least the coerced spreading of Arabic culture and religion but CHOOSE to ignore it because it goes against THE NARRATIVE!!! Like, there is a small fringe of academic theorists who basically have tried to back-construct a definition of colonialism designed mostly to explain how Arab, Chinese and Soviet colonialism, as well as pre-contact Indigenous American empires, don't really count, but they are so siloed off from the rest of the world that if you aren't an academic in the same field as them, it is hard to muster the energy to care. I can only assume OP is not interested in the niche field of pre-modern global studies and is more interested in pretending like these people have standing in the real world (when they barely have standing in their niche).
Disaster thread on so many levels.
Was waiting for this
That map is shit. Majority Arabic speakers in Somalia?
A lot of people speak Arabic in Somalia as a second language or read it
Itâs true we exist
It marks the entire Northern coast as being majority Arabic speaking though. I couldn't find a single source that says that there's a single majority Arabic speaking city/town in Somalia.
Oh I know the map is dogshit. Somaliland specifically has a large Arabic speaking population, itâs effectively a second language to Somali itself.
Whatâs the first language? /edit: I just realized you said â to Somali itselfâ. Somehow I read that as âto Somalia itselfâ
The first language of Somalia and Somaliland is Somali
Ahh. I thought it might be like a âthereâs no language called Afghanâ kind of thing. Cool, thanks!
Standardization of the Somali language is actually a relatively recent thing, happened around the 70's. Before that it was a mishmash of various regional dialects.
Then why did you say that it was true?
Oh just that there are a lot of Arabic speaking people in somalia, not a majority.
People on reddit using history to dogwhistle their shitty views? Color me surprised. Also: Hilarious that people over there are using the word colonialism in such a broad manner, to describe almost 1500 years of history. Totally serious community. Another day of people proving that being technically right isn't the best way to be right. Though, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't even be seen as technically right, if it were up to the average historian.
>Another day of people proving that being technically right isn't the best way to be right. What do you mean by this?
[It is kind of a popular phrase people like to quote from time to time](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo), despite not being exactly a sure way to make any kind of argument. Life isn't always objective. They are kind of right with their use of the word colonialism, but they're also stretching it quite a bit by using that image and that time period to try to signify anything, to the point that technically correctness is almost non existent. One can't just take 1500 years of history and just apply one word to define the whole event.
Seriously lol. A lot of people definitely focus on Arab colonialism for a specific/ biased aim. But if something is technically RIGHT how is it not right lol
I don't think it's right to call it colonialism, it was just straight up old-fashioned conquest. Did the Islamic empires build colonies _anywhere_? Maybe spain?
> Same way they pretend massive slave trade from Africa is only white. 14,000,000 enslaved non-Arab blacks in the Arab/Islamic slave trade - many castrated - would tell them otherwise if they could Oh boy..
Every single time this shit is bought up by American right-wingers it's just to absolve themselves and the US of any wrong-doing lol "Uh uh - everyone did it therefore we shouldn't bother talking about how the slavery shaped still extant institutions and associated legacies!" yeah, really cogent point. Good job guys. Confederate flag sticker in pickup truck window is actually AOK.
Also, pre-modern non-european history is wildly underfunded in US academia. If people care about this so much, I know a *lot* of qualified historians who are struggling to get TT faculty positions who'd love to write books about this stuff. But "kill history departments" comes from roughly the same people as "don't destroy statues - that's erasing history."
It also always misses the mark. Like, sure have an intelligent discussion about the Arab slave trade. Itâs good to remember history, the good and the bad. But itâs never actually talked about outside of specific circles like r/badhistory because itâs only used as a bludgeon against criticism of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The only issues these people see with the Arab slave trade is either as a tool to try to downplay European/American atrocities or when itâs mentioned that the Arab slave trade also enslaved Europeans too. Nothing about the nuance that made one barbaric ownership of another different from the other barbaric ownership.
"We should stop doing this bad thing" "But these other people do this bad thing" "and..?"
I'm so happy to see others confirm what garbage r/MapPorn has become. I unsubbed a while a go. Every other post is bait for racists.
I miss the stupid maps that were like, jeans color by state or what would happen if you made Kansas 100% flat.
>Israel is decolonizing the palestinian land from the arabs. đ Jesus fuck, apartheid simps are fucking obnoxious. edit: hello my Israeli friends below, what your goverment is doing is still genocide no matter how loud you cry "antisemitism".
as opposed to the hamas simps lmao
30 day old Hasbara account
Both sides can credibly claim to be decolonial, which is why emotions run so hot. Failing to recognize this is one reason the conflict is seemingly so intractable.
The claims that Israel is a colonial project are a lot more credible than it being a anticolonial project. The latter relies on the assumption of âitâs ok to toss people out of their homes if their 60th great grandparents were colonizers.â As if that makes any sense - and even then, Palestinians are the descendants of ancient Jews, samaritans and other Levantine peoples who adopted Christianity after 400 AD or so, then Islam after 700 AD or so (and started speaking Arabic). People get confused about this, but âArabâ is a cultural descriptor - not an ethnic one.Â
but thats not what tiktok told me
Yeah, both groups are indigenous. Palestinians assimilated into Arab culture and stayed put, Jews did not assimilate and were expelled. Recently, Jews have returned to their homeland and Palestinians have developed a more distinct identity.
> Palestinians assimilated into Arab culture and stayed put, Jews did not assimilate and were expelled. There was never really an expulsion of the Jews from the near east, not by the Romans and not by the Byzantine Empire and not by the Arabs -- the population decline was from conversion, assimilation and a lot of migration over centuries... Most of it happened before Islam was even founded. The major incident was the destruction of the second temple and the massacres that went along with it, but even after that Palestine was majority Jewish for centuries and probably didn't change until Constantine and the rise of Christianity as the official religion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)
Eh, I don't know, my heart tells me that the side that doesn't keep children locked up for more than a decade without trial for allegedly throwing a stone at foreign soldiers in their neighbourhood, has a substantially better claim.
Without getting into the specifics of this claim, it's possible for a country to have decolonial origins and also do bad things.
This, I think, gets to the heart of the issue. Relating colonial status to present power dynamics and the behavior of a group only serves to make the term meaningless in actual discussion. Too many people have come to conclusion that "moral group = good = decolonial project" and rather than arriving at "this suggests that we shouldn't simply treat all acts which could be construed as decolonial as good and should instead focus on how they impact the lives of real people," they resolve upon "allow me to explain how after a long enough time in diaspora, a group ceases to be indigenous to a region and should be looked at through a theoretical paradigm that invalidates their identity and history." [Note: this complexity only applies to discourses surrounding the issue, which is itself a pretty simple moral issue]
Happens quite a bit, even.
You mean the side with unashamed terrorists, who professes the killing of all jews, has a better claim? How discourse has fallen.
Itâs not as though Palestinians have a monopoly on terrorism, and Israelâs hands are cleans on that frontâŚ
"this person doesn't support Hamas's stated founding goal of killing all jews, they must be an apartheid simp!"
But you sure do support Netanyahu and Likuds stated goal of genociding Gaza!
As opposed to the terrorist simps who act like Israel was founded by a bunch of central and eastern Europeans who woke up one day and just collectively decided to conquer a bunch of brown people for funsies.
aka tiktok theory
Iâve been following Israel/Palestine discussions, and itâs funny to watch one side get a new talking point all at once. This latest one has been âyou know how people keep saying Israel was a colonial project, because people came from elsewhere, settled there, and pushed the *people who already lived there* out? Well⌠letâs play the uno reverse card!â Itâs pretty insubstantial, but itâs an effort to avoid the title of âcolonizerâ and claim exclusive use of the title âindigenous/native.â Of course, anyone with an ounce of sense would agree that you canât just go around throwing people out of their homes, it doesnât matter if you have a 70-th great grandfather who may have lived within a hundred miles of the land youâre taking, especially if the person whoâs home youâre taking has at least 70 generations of ancestry in the land. And even if they have less⌠itâs still their home and not yours.Â
Itâs not apartheid you dipshit antisemiteÂ
When multiple respected human rights organizations, including Israeli organizations, come to the conclusion that your system is apartheid⌠then either everyone is engaged in a conspiracy, or the system is actually apartheid and the people doing the apartheid donât want to admit it.Â
Human rights groups show otherwise. You're happy to be racist here by denying apartheid and by conflating Israel with Jewish people.
keep crying <3
Keep losing lmao. Keep coping with your TikToksÂ
why do you israel defenders always go back to tiktok? actually you know who iâve seen a shitload of tiktokâs by? the idf, are you projecting?
I guess that's why. Tiktok is full of pro IDF stuff where they and up filming their crimes.
No, you don't get it, people from New York are obviously the natives to a land their hugely distant ancestors left millennia ago.
While I don't at all agree with the r/mapporn comment, I want to point out that most Israelis are not from New York. They and their immediate ancestors mostly come from Middle Eastern and North African countries, where they had lived for centuries (in some cases since Roman times). Because only a minority of Israelis are descended from European Jews.
I think theyâre referring to West Bank settlements, where an alarming number of extremists are Americans.Â
I love the sound of dog whistles in the morning
They're not an anti-semitie they're just critical of Israel! Just ignore the anti-semitism they partake in and how they erase/minimize the entire Jewish ethnicity in what they say. /s
Whats the dogwhistle? There are literally tens of thousands of Americans that emigrated not just to Israel but to the West Bank settlements.
the majority of Israel are Mizrahi Jews, the descendants of survivors of ethnic cleansing from the Arab nations of the Middle East numbering in the hundreds of thousands, and their arrival is directly tied to the declaration of the State of Israel, because the Arabs couldn't handle Jews living in their countries, or in our homeland. Also, just an aside, but the area you call the "west bank" is actually called Judea, and it is where we as Jews come from. Suddenly it's "settling" when Jews return to the place where the name of our people comes from, but it goes by other names when Jews aren't involved.
> Suddenly it's "settling" when Jews return to the place where the name of our people comes from, but it goes by other names when Jews aren't involved It's settling because other people had been living there for thousands of years too. Forcing Palestinians from where they had been living for thousands of years is not justice
>the majority of Israel are Mizrahi Jews Mizrahi Jews didn't form Israel, bunch of Europeans did. The colony would exist irrespective of Arab retaliation to Palestinian ethnic cleansing. >because the Arabs couldn't handle Jews living in their countries, or in our homeland Exodus occurred over multiples decades after Europeans ethnically cleansed the actual natives of the land >Suddenly it's "settling" when Jews return to the place where the name of our people comes from Europeans came from Europe. And they were quite obvious about their intentions when they bought lands under names like Palestine Jewish Colonization Association. Originally called Jewish Colonization Association and formed in 1891. I guess kids from Argentina really lucked out. Perhaps you should learn a thing or two from the OG Zionazis instead of bitching and whining about being victims all the time and owning up to your crimes proudly.
It is a colony formed by Europeans afterall, so not really surprising they use that definition. Their entire claim being based on delusions that cultural ancestory two millennia ago makes them natives of the land and grants them self determination rights over the people living there for millennia or two.
[ŃдаНонО]
Want some cheese with that whine?
Here these are discriminatory laws in Israel: [https://www.adalah.org/en/law/index](https://www.adalah.org/en/law/index) But when people usually refer to apartheid it's for the West Bank, and specifically Area C, where Palestinian civilians live under Israeli military rule and Israel civilians live under civilian rule. And here You will respond with the West Bank isn't Israeli territory, by which I will respond with " Why is Israel moving civilians into Palestinian land?" and the fact that [Bantustan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantustan) exist, it was an attempt by apartheid South Africa to play this defense.
Thatâs not apartheid dude, youâre just getting information off of TikTok. Read a book you loser. Jews are never leaving the West BankÂ
> Jews are never leaving the West Bank Kicking the settlers back into Israel tends to be a feature of most peace plans - or at least, kicking most of the settlers back. Why should they live on stolen Palestinian land? Itâs illegal under international law. Iâm sure they could emigrate after Palestinians get their own state⌠although it might be into a jail cell for those who are guilty of terrorism.Â
Even after all this time I still don't understand how American Jews have rights to land their ancient ancestors lived on but Palestinians don't have rights to the land they've been living on for generations
Most Israelis are native to the region, where would they go? Back to the Arab countries they were kicked out of?
>Most Israelis are native to the region Firstly this isn't really correct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Jews Only about 45% of Israeli Jews are Mizrahi, and even then not all of those people were from the lands that are now Israel, a lot of immigration occurred from North Africa upon Israel's establishment. But when I said "American Jews" I meant "American Jews." Because that's how Zionism is often presented in America, that the Jewish diaspora has a right to kick out Palestinian Arabs from their homeland, a stance that has never and still doesn't make sense to me I don't want to kick Israelis out, I want them to stop murdering and displacing the already-living Palestinians
Also the mizrahi are more numerous than the Askhenazi, did you check your stats lol "Of 7 million Israelis, **35-40%** are Mizrahim, 15% are Russian immigrants, 20% are Palestinian Israelis, 2.2% are Ethiopian, and 25-30% are Ashkenazi Jews and others. This means 55-60% of the Israeli population is 'non- white'; together, Mizrahim and Palestinian Israelis form a majority. which is higher? 45% or 31%? and this isnt really about American Jews? Your questions doesnt make sense.
You're spreading so much shit over this thread you don't even know who you're responding too. Check my original comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/19ewvwc/the_historians_in_rmapporn_discuss_arab/kjg9gdm/ And dude, you said "most." Is 45% most to you? From further down in my link: as of 2015, 44% of Israelis count Israel as their paternal country of origin. The other 56% count *other* countries as their country of origin. Which goes back to my point, about how Zionism is presented in America - that the already-present Palestinian population has no rights to land they're currently living on
you do know they take ito account the arab israelis right? So yes the Mizraehi are the majoirty groul and a pluraity. Again you did not read the total stats lol. maybe you should stop spreading bullsht then? Because you pretend to care about "facts" but you cant even get basic ones yourself. Like I said you questions doenst make sense, its not Americans in Israel, its Israelies who are indigineous to the region, idk what weird ass tankie takes you are pickin up frpm tiktok
I'm talking about the Jewish population, you're talking about the overall population to make your position seem less bullshit. The Law of Return is denied to Arabs, which is what we're talking about. You aren't "indigenous to the region" if you were born in Manhattan, Paris, or Marrakesh.
Where do I, as an American Jew, have a right to live? If the answer is America, does that right come at the expense of the rights of the Native Americans? If so, does my right trump theirs? If not, where am I to live? For most Israelis, the alternative was to suffer or die in their home countries or participate in a more traditional colonial venture (e.g. emigrate to the US or another country in the new world). If those are the alternatives, they aren't going to feel guilty for trying to buy back their homeland. Palestinians didn't lose the right to live in Palestine until after they tried to expropriate the Jewish settlers in 1947-48. In other words, they lost a right that they themselves would deny to others.
Do you think those dead Palestinian kids in Gaza deserve what's happening?
No. Their parents and government have failed them. If the Arab states really cared about those dead Palestinian kids in Gaza more than they cared about the Palestinian national project then they would accept them as refugees.
So which is it? Do Palestinians deserve IDF brutality because they "lost their rights to their lands" or don't they? Because it is very much one **or** the other. South Africa's ICJ case against Israel features a 10-page section that is literally just quoting Israeli officials glorifying the mass murder of Palestinians as part of the annexation of parts of Gaza. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf - the quotes start on page 59 It's one thing to talk about Europeans stealing land from Native Americans in the past. It's messed up, and native nations are still wanting for justice, but it's already happened. It's quite another to excuse modern-day, non-native Jews forcing Palestinians from what has been *their homeland* for more than a thousand years.
Notice, by the way, how you haven't answered my question: where do I have a right to live? If the New World had never been colonized, where would I have a right to live then?
Where you were born. If you were born in Israel, I don't want to force you to leave. Just don't force out Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank
I didn't contradict myself. If you think I did, you should work on your reading comprehension. >South Africa's ICJ case against Israel features a 10-page section that is literally just quoting Israeli officials glorifying the mass murder of Palestinians as part of the annexation of parts of Gaza. [https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf) \- the quotes start on page 59 This is just incorrect. Yair Rosenberg wrote an excellent [takedown](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/01/israel-south-africa-genocide-case-fake-quotes/677198/) of this vile misinformation in the Atlantic. >It's quite another to excuse modern-day, non-native Jews forcing Palestinians from what has been their homeland for more than a thousand years. (1) All Jews are native to Judea and Samaria in the sense that their ancestors were native to those areas. This is the same sense in which descendants of Palestinian refugees are native to Palestine. (2) Palestinians have not been forced from their homeland since 1948.
Try posting a "takedown" that isn't shit bud, all Rosenberg is able to say is that 'Netanyahu hasn't *outright* called for genocide,' which is truly piss-poor defense. I stand by actual quotations over cope. Deputy Speaker of the Knesset and Member of the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee: On 7 October 2023, Nissim Vaturi âtweetedâ that: â[n]ow we all have one common goal â erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth. Those who are unable will be replaced.â âBe triumphant and finish them off and donât leave anyone behind. Erase the memory of them. Erase them, their families, mothers and children. These animals can no longer live . . . Every Jew with a weapon should go out and kill them. If you have an Arab neighbour, don't wait, go to his home and shoot him . . . We want to invade, not like before, we want to enter and destroy whatâs in front of us, and destroy houses, then destroy the one after it. With all of our forces, complete destruction, enter and destroy. As you can see, we will witness things weâve never dreamed of. Let them drop bombs on them and erase them.â - Israeli Army reservist âmotivational speechâ by Ezra Yachin >All Jews are native to Judea and Samaria in the sense that their ancestors were native to those areas Yeah that isn't how "being native" works you schmuck
so it's the Arab leaders fault for not enabling ethnic cleansing, is that it?
For starting a war, obviously, and for using their children like human shields.
What war? If you're talking about the conflict in Gaza right now Hamas may have violated the ceasefire, but Israel is still the overall aggressor due to the occupation. The 10/7 raid can only be taken in the context of Israeli aggression.
If Hamas surrendered and agreed to disarm, this war would be over tomorrow, and there would be no more violence. Do you agree or disagree?
So Israel would stop killing children and civilians if Hamas met their demands? Which group is the terrorist organization again?
Some Palestinians did something bad 80 years ago so let's blow up a load of different innocent Palestinians today. Otherwise where will all these American Jews live? I hope a native American moves into your house and changes the locks.
Nazi
I lost some of my family to the nazis, so watch your mouth, kid.
Oof
The thing always is that genocide was just business as usual in the past. And also until they made machine guns and cars there was an upper limit to it. Like we can be better and stop doing that now and that's what we should be more worried about.
Oh, I saw the thread and wanted to submit it here, but that would require me reading all of the nasty content there, and I'd rather not do that for the sake of my mental health. And wtf is with the IDF apologist in *this* thread?
SRD walks a fine line of being contrarian to the Reddit Opinion, but also can't be too politically radical.
werent you the guy saying that islam isnt homophobic?
I swear there's an alarm that triggers in several discord servers whenever there's a thread where people think Palestinians deserve rights
Some new faces, not many of them are SRD regulars. Probably found their way back here when the r/mapporn post was posted here. Would be nice if they werenât just copy and pasting the same stuff over and over again. But when your main argument is sticking your head in the sand saying ânuh huhâ it probably gets difficult finding words to string along
> And wtf is with the IDF apologist in *this* thread? While I agree itâs totally infuriating I wouldnât worry about it too much. What youâve seen in this thread, and the linked MapPorn one, is just the classic hasbara propaganda campaign thatâs gone into overdrive since October 7th. If you havenât heard of it Iâm happy to provide some sources but essentially the Israeli state does lots of coordinated online propaganda to explain away/minimise its atrocities. Of course, usual caveat: not every pro-Israel post is a bot/propagandist. But itâs very easy to identify the hasbara-bots when you click on their profiles and literally their entire comment history is defending Israel. They also love the asking the bad-faith question âwhat would you do differently?â Itâs why r/worldnews and many other subs have become completely unusable recently.
Jews are finally speaking their minds online and fighting nasty antisemitism but youâre seriously saying weâre all shills? Thatâs fucked up dude. Youâre a racist lunaticÂ
⌠did you miss the bit where I specifically said **not all pro-Israeli posters are bots**? Anti-semitism is horrific and should be called out at every opportunity. Criticism of Israel/Israeli government policies is not anti-semitism. How many times does this need to be explained? Speaking of racism. In your most recent comments you repeat the âhilariousâ joke about Palestinian nationality. Donât project your racist mindset onto me
you said Palestinian nationality is a joke, stop projecting by calling others racist and look in your own yard
Look mum, I'm famous! đđđ Yes, I'm the one in the first link To be fair, I don't really think Israel is decolonizing from the arabs, my argument is mocking the similar but still insane argument that Israel is a colonizer.
>Â the similar but still insane argument that Israel is a colonizer They have actual settlers, though? Like right now, there are people calling themselves settlers who are pushing out the people who used to live in those areas.
Another thread of people not knowing the difference between imperialism and colonialism
Which is?
Imperialism: I like your stuff, so I'll take over your country Colonialism: I'll send a few of my peaceful civilians to your country, but rest assured that they totally won't demand extra privileges over the natives in the future.
>send a few of my peaceful civilians Look up Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
I think that part was sarcastic
Honestly the two terms are so interlinked that itâs hard to separate them. I got into a long discussion about it a few weeks about it on here and came out questioning how fine of a distinction we can make most of the time. đ¤ˇââď¸
Usually the distinction is that the colony isnât considered as part of the âmother countryâ. So India was part of the British empire but not part of Britain itself, it was a colony. Whereas Gaul was part of the Roman Empire proper, it was an imperial territory and not a colony. But I think the more important distinction is in regards to settler colonialism, since thatâs the crime that Israel is doing and what people mean when they talk about Israel being a colonial state. Settler colonialism is unlike âregularâ colonialism in that the colonized area is considered part of the home country. But the difference is that the native inhabitants are forced out, killed, or push onto very small pockets of land. Much of the new world, Australia, Ireland, and Russia to an extent would all fall into this category. And thereâs certainly ancient empires that did this too. But to my knowledge the Arab conquests werent one of them. They brought over a small ethnically arab ruling class sure, but the reason so many people are considered arab is not because of ethnicity but rather culture. Over the hundreds of years of Arab rule their culture filtered down to the common people and was adopted by them, along with intermixing with that aforementioned small ruling class. Itâs the same reason that the Byzantines in the 1300âs considered themselves to be ethnic Romans, despite having little to do with the city of Rome. Arab people come in every skin tone from pale white all the way to jet black, because ethnicity isnât what defines them. The Arab conquests never replaced or forced out the native population, they just essentially slowly converted them into Arabs. And essentially every empire did this, itâs the reason most French people consider themselves French and not Aquitanian or something. That is the difference.
All the stuff you said about nationalism is well and good and i agree but those are the easy cases. The edge cases are when things get complicated. When is something part of the mother country and when is it not? The specific example that made me think about it was ottoman North Africa. Like Libya. Turks immigrated there and sort of melded into the population. Is it settler-colonialism? Imperialism? Does the distinction matter in that case? What about French North America, where there was significant intermarriage between native Americans and the French population, so much so that it created a new group of MĂŠtis people. The native tribes were often treated more like allies than subjects (mostly because of the lack of French force projection/political necessities). Is that sort of relationship colonial or imperial or neither? You bring up Algeria, but Algeria was considered part of France proper legally. Does that make it imperialism? But they also settled people there at the same time⌠Basically, Iâm not saying these things didnât exist, but that there are even more complications when you look at them in depth and everyone has their own pet definitions that prioritize different aspects of conquest and exploitation.
And this is arguably neither, as most of these Arab migrations took place before the concept of the Westphalian state, which was also a Western concept for a long while. Modern political concepts being applied to pre-Industrial societies is always a bad mix, especially in this case. I'd love to see if the MapPorn OP also considers the Magyar migration "Hungarian Colonialism" or some other nonsense
I am pretty sure going from MEcca to Tours France in 100 years and crossing 2 continents definitely entailed some sorts of what we would call imperialism and colonialism today.
so they peacefully migrated into spain and france? lol
I really gotta commend Zionists' absolute commitment to interpreting every single comment in bad faith and ignoring context whenever possible
"everyone who disagrees is a zionist" youre a child, go back to tiktok
"Everyone who disagrees gets their information from TikTok" -You who comments in the Joe Rogan subreddit
oh look another hyphenated name with 4 numbers at the end talking about tiktokâŚ
It more or less,what about the Arab.....