The debate "You have no ancestral claim to land" was started by
December 11, 2018, 6:01 am.
21 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 15 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 3 arguments, JDAWG9693 posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
ototoxic, Nemiroff, JDAWG9693, zeka, goodlo and 16 visitors agree.
Jakellutis, wilsoergel76, WiseWords and 12 visitors disagree.
I'm not sure if anyone is. but technically indian reservations are not part of the US, still I think their special circumstance earned them automatic citizenship.
all I'm saying is that there are other factors in play besides just the claim of ancestral ownership. I was thinking this mostly in the case of Israel v palestine where the Jews make an ancestral claim as their reason, but their method was often legitamete land purchases. even their war gains were gains made when they pushed back attackers, not then when they attacked others.
so yes, their ancestral claim is valid only to themselves as the *reason why* they want that specific land. but their method of acquisition is what gives them actual modern claim to the land. of course theres a ton more nuance there as well. the beauty of reality is its complexity and many moving parts.
Of course Native Americans should be given American citizenship if they're born in the United States. I don't think anyone argues against that?
where did I say one has an ancestral claim? your completely not reading, and just assuming, what I am saying.
the fact that your ancestors once lived there means next to nothing to anyone but you. and is in no way a justification to kick current residents out, especially if they have lived there for generations.
however, the way the land was taken may mean something. in the case of native Americans, it may be justifiable to guarantee american citizenship to any of them if they so wish as well as maintaining the independence of their independent lands. why do so many people feel every situation must choose between all or nothing in the most extreme ways?
What, then, are you proposing? Nobody denies that the land was conquered, but by saying that one has an "ancestral claim" is leading to the people making that claim wanting the land back. So, please clarify
no one ever said giving anything back, but that doesnt change reality or history.
I'm not sure why you thumbs me down when I never said people are guilty or land should be returned, however we must acknowledge the methods by which their land was taken. I'm not advocating for deporting Americans of many generations, but remembering why the handful of reservations and their status as an independent nation should continue to be preserved.
your reaction to the mere mention of consideration of history and reality suggests quite a bit of defensiveness on your part. I dont disagree with your statement, just your assumptions and reaction.
Back then, it was a time of conquering. Now, of course, it's different, but we can't just give it back. The people who were conquered should learn to adapt and thrive in today's society instead of complaining about the past.
I agree, however it isn't usually the only factor involved.
I can only think of 2 modern situations. native Americans and israel.
native Americans have the consideration of how their land was taken.
and Israel has the consideration of how the land was acquired and the actions of the many parties involved.
reality is not a 1 factor experiment, but many parts moving at the same time. simplified statements are good as part of a discussion but propaganda as a rallying cry.