I find it interesting that every group apart from Europeans are called ‘indigenous peoples’. We are also indigenous, Europe is our indigenous homeland.
Officially the only indigenous people in Europe are the Sami people. They came to Finland some 3500 years ago. Finns came about 3000 years ago. It is absurd that we are compare to those to moved to the new world in the last 500 years.
@@okaro6595 There is no archaeological evidence that the Sami are the original inhabitants of all of Finland. The evidence is the Finns came first to Southern Finland. And that's foundationally irrelevant because the Finns in the south and the Sami in the North intermarried and now the Finns have some Sami DNA.
Yes you are and you have demographic domination depite the hysteria of being "replaced". Settler colonies however have the colonizers as demographically dominant and the indigenous as smaller political forces. The exceptions are countries like South Africa. Once Palestine is free, it will be in a similar category to South Africa.
@@SuperKripke What hysteria? It’s a fact that the native populations of many western nations will become the minority within the next 50-100 years. This is what all of the peer reviewed research suggests. And each nation has consistently voted against mass uncontrolled immigration only for our governments (who do not represent us) to ignore the will of the people and continue to increase immigration and force it on us. These are all irrefutable facts. And by ‘settled coloniser’ I assume you only mean white western nations whilst you conveniently ignore the rest. This manipulation and deceit has gone on for too long, we’re not tolerating it anymore.
In Canada you see the idea of settler colonialism quite frequently. It is used mostly for the following purposes… 1) To justify the burning of churches and the desecration of monuments. 2) To argue for control and ownership of vast resources and lands made incredibly valuable, primarily by the efforts of the colonialists. 3) To justify constant criticism of and slander towards colonialists. The obviously false but still often repeated Kamloops mass grave story is probably the best example of that. 4) To obtain reduced sentences in criminal trials. 5) To obtain funds for indiginization and decolonization of everything from place names, to museums. In British Columbia these names are written in a script that is very difficult to interpret, even more difficult to enter into a computer and that nobody uses. And this after indigenous scholars are paid to come up with these names. Decolonization is very much about wealth transfer. 5) This is probably the worst one. Colonization is used to excuse incredible abuse of women and children on dysfunctional First Nations. The idea is that since we sent aboriginal children to residential schools where they were abused it is our fault that those children grew up to be abusers themselves. There is probably some truth to that but it is also true that stories of residential school abuse was grossly exaggerated because they were told in expectation of direct or indirect financial reward and without an opportunity for the accused to confront the accuser. It doesn’t help either that positive stories about residential schools, of which there are many, are almost completely ignored. Anyway, a lot of Canadians are getting sick of it. Especially since they have seen recent rising calls for residential school denialism laws which would make this very post of mine illegal.
you're some deluded conservative christian. residential schools were a inquisition of enforced religious indoctrination perpetrated on the local population of this country by our government and christians. christianity should be outlawed in this country for what it did and continues to do. we should be raiding the vatican for all their pedophiles to stand trial for their crimes around the world. should be giving reparation for all they stole from slaves too. if you christians had any empathy, you'd stf and do what's right. but your bible gives excuses for being cvnts.
Much, if not all that Adam Kirsch says about the Arab-Israeli conflict is factually incorrect. He may be Jewish, and he may know a lot about history, but his comments about the A-I conflict are sterile. One example is a 2 state solution is the only solution. He doesn’t appreciate that the 2 states are both Arab (Gaza and Judea and Samaria), with no Jews in the middle. He doesn’t appreciate that it’s a religious conflict borne out of the words of the Koran. that there will be no Jews in our (Muslim Arabs) midst, and even the trees will speak and tell you where a Jew is hiding. He doesn’t appreciate that the Arabs had Gaza all to themselves since 2005, and all they did was turn it into a base for launching wars against Israel, not offering any protection for the Gazan Arabs when Israel would justifiably retaliate. He speaks as if Israel never offered the Arabs peace treaties some 4 or 5 times, each being rejected because they were all 2 state solutions. I’m aghast at his lack of appreciation of the true nature of this religious conflict. Every land for peace deal resulted in Israel being attacked. He doesn’t mention the two intifadas. Shameful bias on his part. Seems like he won’t admit it, but he may actually believe it’s all Israel’s fault. Far from it. Islam wants to spread its ideology everywhere within, and beyond the Middle East.
The oldest archaeological site in Gaza is a Jewish synagogue which predates Islam by 100 years. The Nation of Israel was founded in 1047 BCE, 1800 years before Islam. The Quran says numerous times, Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jews/Israelites/Hebrew people.
And? You think that if aliens came back to earth and told us it used to be theirs but they got kicks out by the people from like atlantis, you think we will leave to mars?
@@achrafd26 Well that's a non sequitur; a more valid question is, upon whose land is the Dome of the Rock built? What is the Western Wall a wall of? And another more valid question - are the Islamic conquests of all of North Africa and the Middle East, going back to the 800's, not settler colonialism? Do the indigenous peoples of those areas not have a claim against their Arab conquerors?
@@achrafd26Gregor is correct that has nothing to do with anything in the real world. But you might ask yourself whether the Palestinians who have been exiled and who live all over the place have an end date to their claim if return. Then, after you answer on the negative, ask yourself when the Jews end-date was, don't bother checking your hypocrisy, and then pat yourself on the back for finally clearing all that up like a good white person.
The "far right" party just won in Austria. With one third of Austrians being of foreign background (1st or 2nd generation) and 33% of school kids in Vienna being muslim. How can we not heed the call of native Europeans wanting to conserve their country and culture?
Hundreds of thousands of Jews move to Palestine with the explicit aim of replacement and demographic domination of the region: it's what God wanted 👌 Muslims form less than 10% of European nations: hysteria ensues 😬
This is exactly why this settler colonialism idea can be very dangerous because it can be used by extremists against people they consider to be "foreign". You are kind of proving the whole point Kirsch is making here.
If that's true than homogeneous society would crumble before diverse ones. That's not the case. It doesn't mean diverse society can't or doesn't work , but all this sloganeering about diverse societies are stronger or better simply isn't true. But it makes for good propaganda. @@nicolasolton
It is weird that the people complaining about colonization select a certain part of history to start from, yet they don't start when people moved out of what is now Africa and colonized the world then. It only starts, for those complaining, after hominids colonized the world when leaving present-day Africa. How about we stop looking at things through lenses that distort our view and just look at reality as it is? Edit: Added comment
Not exactly the same thing. Israel was specifically a project to settle European Jews in Palestine, the project was founded around the same time as Germans were conjuring up ideas around lebensraum (late 1800s), whilst not official doctrine at the time, it's early ideas were beginning to take shape, it wasn't just the Germans, ethno nationalist ideas were ripe at the time, the ideas that gave birth to Israel were no different "we are superior by the grace of God, it is our land and we will displace the existing population" go read the words of the original founders of Israel, it mirrors the exact same philosophy of the British and the Americans, and, the same rationalizations the Germans used to invade lands like Poland.
It's about all of those things you mentioned. And the anti-Zionists acknowledge the longer-term history. But they are primarily focused on ameliorating whatever suffering we can at this particular time in history. Negotiations must be had, and anti-Zionists recognize it and promote it. But negotiation is difficult to come by in this situation. Force often takes over. The colonization of Palestine was forced and so was the ensuing ghettoizing of the Palestinians. Now we can't go back. We have to move forward, and find ways to force attain real negotiations.
The great statistician George Box said “All models are wrong but some are useful”. Not to derail us with epistemology, but my point is that your advice to “look at reality as it really is” depends on presuppositions about the existence, quality, and human-observability of a singular objective reality. Indeed, historiography, psychology, economics, and myriad other fields tend to show that human beings are intrinsically subjective observers, whose experience is deeply shaped by “lenses”. Even the “theory of mind” most children develop as toddlers is essentially unfalsifiable, but is ubiquitous for its utility and congruity to our other beliefs. To be clear, not all lenses are equally reliable (to the extent that is even testable). However, I have yet to encounter any piece of information conceivable without some “framing lenses”. In summary, discarding all lenses is not an option to the empiricist, and counter to the point of presuppositionalism.
@@Mountainshark The word "of" is key to understanding. It makes the distinction the Untied States is a country in (North) America. Unfourtantly the word America is used as a metaphor by many to describe a single country the United States. God Bless America?
@cosmicsquid America is in the name. No other country in North or South America has the name America in the name. What should be used instead of American? United Stateser? Uniteder Unitedican? It doesn't make sense. America is short for the United States of America. It is not implying that the US is the only country in the Americas. FYI, Central America is not a continent. So ignorant yet so confident and loud.
@@MountainsharkUnited states of central America existed for many years in the 1800s. All the small countries south of mexico being part of it. Also Mexico is really The United States of Mexico😅
@ballenboy You are acting like you know something that I didn't know. Central America is not a continent. Yes, I know the official name of Mexico is Estados Unidos Mexicanos. I'm literally Mexican and have a Mexican passport. Bringing up facts that I already know doesn't help you. Name a country with America in the name? There is only one country with America in the name.
@@SoviCalc What is a Cherokee reservation? The revolutionaries in the American Revolution weren't the indigenous people of central North America. They were settler colonialists, and they didn't stop colonizing indigenous people after they ceased to have a colonial overlord themselves.
@restonthewind What can you tell me about the Anasazi? Nothing; and neither could the Zuni who squatted in their ruins. What did the earliest Easter Islanders record in their language, Rongorongo? The people living there when when Europeans arrived had no idea - because they had long ago erased them. Ever wonder how the Toltecs furnished their daily sacrifices to the plumed serpent? Yes, occasionally the source was prisoners of war - but that was unsustainable. Mesoamericans were agricultural too, and they kept human farms. Yes, humans raised from infancy in cages, fattened like livestock, for the sole purpose of "donating" their still-beating hearts to the priests of Huitzilopochtli. Bernal Diaz could barely keep his composure as he wrote his eyewitness account through scorching tears. Wouldn't you find it fascinating to know how Greek Egyptians thought - how North Africans saw the world and felt about their roles in it? I would; but I can't because Mohammed, the most successful settler colonialist of all, wiped them out completely in the 7th century. Civilization is a layer cake of graveyards. My ancestors are Shawnee. How are their domains determined? By the shared "range" of Algonquin languages. That means many voices vying for the same land. You think we didn't have arrows and tomahawks before Columbus?
@@SoviCalcSeems more a semantical question of what is “anti-colonialism”, motivated by not being a colony vs against colonialism. By default “the colonies” becoming an independent entity ended the US’s self-identification as a colony, we continued the activity of colonizing. Gentrification is arguably colonization.
With respect of the British colonization (and subsequently the United States) against the will of the people who REALLY owned the land [Native Americans]. I this framing needs to be examined. The 500 Indian nations that roved North America, 1. Didn't think of ownership in the way we think of it in our culture, and 2. They were constantly warring with one another and leveraging brutality in ways that would make a Navy Seal nauseous, in other words, the purity test and search for moral clarity is very murky, which is not to say I endorse abuse, persecution and mistreatment, only that you'd be hard pressed to find a pair of clean hands ANYWHERE in this human project.
@@tatonemio6388"RIGHT to self determination"? What value does claiming a 'right' to self determination or a connection to a place have to a newcomer, new tribe, or military force that does not respect your 'right' to self determination or care about your claim to have a connection with a place? Enter every battle, territorial dispute, and war that has been fought throughout history.
@@davidlenett8808 Again, "morality" is irrelevant only the connection to the land by a "people". A nomad people has no connection with the land. And the concepts of "owning a land" ("people who REALLY owned the land" ) and living in a land are different. A people that only hunt specific animals and move constantly from place to place can't claim as its own the land where they hunt.
I would say Earthlings, & everyone outside of Africa are “immigrants” or descended from people who emigrated from Africa. At one point there was maybe as few as 1000 humans; we are literally one family/tribe. We killed off the other hominids, then turned our xenophobia & aggression on each other.
@@tuckerbugeater In my corpus callosum? Hmm, wouldn’t xenophobia be a frontal cortex “resident?” Neurology isn’t my expertise, but doesn’t seem like it’s yours either.. 😉
Of course it delegitimizes nations, because nations were never legitimate. Thats the WHOLE logic behind settler colonialism. Here in Canada the government now talks about 'nation to nation' discussions with first nations, but of course that never pertains to anything but rhetoric. What nobody wants to talk about is that most 'nations' were created after world war two, and even here in Canada NOBODY ever voted to 'join' canada except Newfoundland in a referendum that is now accepted as being crooked. What nobody wants to talk about is DIVIDING the land with first nations. This is western colonialism in a nutshell and if you want to talk about 'legitimacy' all you have to do is look at western norms. When the crimea wanted to separate from Ukraine, it was pointed out that NO part of a country can actually leave a country WITHOUT that countryes permission. In other words, its up to the imperial power whether it lets you go. After the Quebec referendum Canada signed in the 'Clarity Act' which means any province that wants to leave, can only do so with FEDERAL approval. Which is like saying a slave can only be free if the master decides it. We saw this play out in Spain when the basque region voted for independance and Canada, the US and western europe cheered when Spain ARRESTED the politicians who had been duly elected and held the peaceful referendum. So forget 'settler colonialism', this is BLATANT 'imperialism'.
@@tatonemio6388 And that's relevant to this conversation because.....? There's only one question that matters: is there a land, that all early zionists like Herzel and every one else actually called Palestine, where some people lived since generations, and who were then colonised and kicked out of their homes, their villages destroyed, and all that? Whether these people eat humus or play a kind of oud like Syrians or Moroccans is so unbelievably irrelevant to the feeling of specific people who grew up somewhere and visited their grand parents at the cemetery around the corner, fell in love there and planned to build an olive press in their field. Who cares about whether they once had some king that we've heard about (good for them if they didn't - I don't know), or if they sing different songs from the people a few hundred kilometres away? How does that have any bearing on whether it's OK to destroy the villages that they live in and telling them that they don't exist? The fact that you care about that shows that you live in a fantasy world where this kind of blood and war nationalism toxic mindset rules your affect. It's not good for you man.
@@vfwh Because of your comment " having a king is really what makes you a people isn't it?" require you to tell what make a people with a right for self-determination. And yes, Kings/Monarchies can be part of what make a people. you: " so unbelievably irrelevant to the feeling of specific people who grew up somewhere and visited their grand parents at the cemetery around the corner, fell in love there and planned to build an olive press in their field." Great! So Israelis are good to stay. You are not very smart, aren't you. you: "There's only one question that matters: is there a land, that all early zionists like Herzel and every one else actually called Palestine, where some people lived since generations, and who were then colonised and kicked out of their homes, their villages destroyed, and all that?" 1) Palestine is the name the Roman Empire gave to the land where Israel existed 2) The people living in Palestine were not called Palestinians since Palestine was not a land defined by a specific "people" They were Arabs coming from the Arab peninsula during the Islamic Empire 3) "Colonization" require a motherland so which country also use Hebrew? 4) 20% of the current Israel population is Arab 5) Before 1948 all land owned by Jews was legally purchased 6) The "Palestinians" always refused to build their own state on the land next to a Jewish state. They refused in 1948 and wedged a war to Israel which they lost, between 1948 and 1967 when part of the land was controlled by other Arab countries and still they refused to build a state in Gaza when was free from Israel occupation starting in 2005.
When has deconolinzation ever ended well? Perhaps Hong Kong, but are there any other examples? Every other example of when the British or French were driven out, I read of bloodshed and a decrease in the standard of living. After giving it some thought, I conclude that colonization has has a net positive effect on the world. What am I missing?
Perhaps decolonizations would end better if the US didn’t have a habit of attempting regime change operations and economic warfare against formerly colonized peoples. Currently 30% of the world is under US sanctions. That includes 60% of the world’s poorest countries; most of which were once colonized.
Well, to put it bluntly history and economic development are “path-dependent”, so I suggest focusing on specific countries. To demonstrate the non-specificity of “colonialism” as a term: Homo-erectus competing with Neanderthals, Phoenician colonization of the Mediterranean, greek colonies in Sicily, Italian colonies in Britain, Japanese colonies in Korea, Chinese colonies in ancient Yunaan, Iberian colonies in the western hemisphere, French colonies in indochina, British colonies in the Raj, German colonies in Africa, eastern europe, ect… I will end here. Obviously these are very very different, so I will guess you are asking about the 20th century decolonization of European territories which itself stems from the 19th century imperialism of Europe superpowers made temporarily so by the circumstances of the rather different colonialism which took place in the age of sail, “discovery” ect. To conflate everything is to have no concrete thing to examine. So, focusing on some challenges associated with 20th century decolonization, I can name a few from memory. I strongly suggest you read on your own. 1. Decolonization is a very poor measure of the counterfactual (never colonized). Many areas really do need decades or centuries to recover. 2. “Decolonization” in the international sense of reaffirmed sovereignty has often led to the co-opting of the colonial state and various instruments of autocracy and extraction by the new local elites (see “Why Nations Fail”, Acemaglu and Robinson). 3. Furthermore the power vacuum, opportunity for kleptocracy, and sudden loss of a unifying external enemy is a recipe for violence. 4. We are English speakers… so yeah we are probably more exposed to “post-colonial” apologia. Just look at Winston Churchill’s contest legacy in the UK and abroad. 5. Colonialism doesn’t have an on/off button, and many “post-colonial” states have remained reliant on international superpowers well after achieving“independence”(see “Dead Aid” by Dambisa Moyo). Indeed, the point of having 5 permanent members of the UN security council with veto-powers was to formalize the great powers’ privileges in a diplomatic forum. I suspect it would be familiar- though hopefully better for global peace than- the players in the “Concert of nations” system which defined European international affairs after the Napoleonic wars, and helped Europe turn its military adventurism outwards to controlling raw resources and thereby building up its economy through industrial exports. That of course didn’t last, partly because after 2 WWs America refused to bail out their European debtors indefinitely without movement towards decolonization. 6., the cold war and its aftermath cant really be called “post-colonial” im the general sense. Rather, scope, nature, players, propaganda, ect merely changes as it always has over time. 7. To get back to your question…. I think that many people did not see benefits from decolonization in their life-time. Often times resistance to colonization has led to sabotage of economic opportunities, social cohesion, physical infrastructure, and violence against human beings. That has included collective punishment, sterilization, mass killings, human right violations, and yes sometimes the g-word (I wont make a list for you). Was it worth it for them? For their grand children? Does the answer change if a former colonial soldier turned guerrilla turned warlord took control after independence? People are responsible for their own choices, but the human costs of colonization outlive the contemporary benefactors. The failures of decolonization therefore are a stain on the dignity of both the former colonial masters and subjects. 8. Anyone who sees that as a special criticism of their tribe or heroes ought to read history. You will be humbled by the global prevalence of human-made suffering. I hope you can see you have so much power in the present to avoid past mistakes. Children can see the wisdom in the phrase “two wrongs do not make a right”. Or as the bible says “those who live by the sword shall die by the sword”.
Re: America was started as an anti-colonial movement. The British Empire had signed binding treaties with First Nations peoples respecting their territorial claims. The American Founding Fathers had property claims in those territories. So one of the Intolerable Acts was the prevention of the further westward expansion of the British American colonists. So you could easily make the argument that the American Revolution had as one of its major causes the desire to engage in more colonialism, which was prevented by the British.
Most of this anti-Israel sophistry most definitely comes both the Marxist and anticolonizer metaphors. There also was a concerted effort in 1970's African American nationalism to develop those "equations" of injustice, and who is the enemy. Israel partly became the enemy simply because those equations also embraced Islamism: religion was one of the ways people were "colonized" and Africans were commonly converted from Islam to Christianity when imported as slaves. That "realization" led to many of the more radical African Americans to convert back to Islam, and consequently created an automatic affiliation with Islamic causes, such as the Palestinian conflict. This especially is true of the forced notion of Jews somehow being "colonizers" of Judea while failing to acknowledge Muslims colonized the area as well during their conquests of those areas.
I wonder if the indigenous Americans, Australians, etc. would actually trade their current lives for "pre-colonial" pre-industrial, per-scientific lives. I think not. If not, this conversation is hypocritical at best.
You don't know, do you? Have you been to Australia? Do you think that native Australian people feel better now than they did when they roamed their land? Do you feel that native Americans today have more dignity and sense of empowerment in their lives than they did before? I don't know, and neither do you. I really don't think that there's an obvious answer to this question, unless you take for granted that living in a modern city or having a TV just magically makes human lives better. I don't find that obvious at all.
That view of people and culture is fatally Romantic. People live individual lives. They seek food, shelter and sexual partners, on their own. For these kinds of lives, eating grubs, because you have to, being killed in the raid from a neighboring troop and dying in childbirth are not noble and only a fool picks the uncertainty, hard work and erstwhile nobility in trade for access to a dentist.
@@jamestierney3572 I'm glad for you that you actually know these things for sure about all the human "people/ individuals". Plus, you also may have an ignorant view of what life was like for peoples who didn't have a European way of life. You are making a hell of a lot of assumptions about a) counterfactuals (who knows how these societies would have evolved if they hadn't been massacred by europeans?) and b) actual facts that you don't know (how pre-colonisation people lived and felt about their lives). The thing is, you're right about people being individuals and making choices about their lives. What you have only an ideological point of view about however, is what "shelter", "a good sexual partner", "good food" means for people who are not you. Since you seem to be such an evolutionist hobbyist, have you heard about sexual selection? It basically means how species evolve through preferential mating choices, which includes all kinds of other preferential environment things that have no specific fitness benefit, and may even have a fitness cost. For sure it's all about spreading genes, but spreading genes is not all about maximising calories.
First of all, your invoking of sexual selection is incoherent to my ear. Sexual Selection is a vital part of natural selection, rife in the animal kingdom and human societies. What's your point. As for assumptions, you are the one claiming special insight into how archaic people felt. Even if you are right, so what? Archaic people, like all of us, made the best of what they had and what they know. Could Australasian Aborigines eventually had an Enlightenment and acquired science, medicine, etc. Probably. But it would behoove you to look into the history that led to the European Enlightenment as well as the decisions made in China, India and the Levant that sidetracked their near misses. There is no certainty of outcome in evolution, biological or cultural. There is only good and bad luck, loaded with chance and uncertainty. My point remains standing. Most of the descendants of cultures met and conquered by Europeans will not willingly re-invent themselves by completely abandoning all "western" ideas, tools and cultural products. They are too smart, too focused on their own comfort and happiness and that of their children. Is this a travesty of justice, of course. The same travesty of justice that exists in the Congo when a troop with 10 fighting males kills the 7 in the neighboring troop and takes over their females & territory. Searching for Cosmic Justice is naive and self indulgent virtue signalling.
@@StraussBR 1) 50% of Jewish Israeli are descendant from Jews expelled from Arab counties, they are very much not white. No Jews are left in many Arab countries 2) 2 millions "wiped out native population" Arab/Muslims live in Israel as citizens ...the Jews are not good as wiping out people as the Arabs
Brilliant ! thanks :) indeed, those who are hell bent on correcting the past are bound to destroy the future too. while those who profess to correct the future often misuse & abuse the present. for every Great solution creates great new problems...
"Rhodesia where the colonists dominated and exploited the native population" This is only partly true, the black population also benefitted in multiple ways by being ruled by a technologically advanced minority - such as education, healthcare, food security, infrastructure etc. The irony is that when a "non-white" elite in history (or a black tribe in Africa) rule over a minority it is never expressed in these overt racial tones - thus the extreme anticolonialists are themselves racist. The Mughals in India comes to mind: the Mughal elite, largely Muslim and of Central Asian origin, governed a majority Hindu population for centuries. Another example: the Tutsi minority ruling over the Hutu in Rwanda
so palestinians and anti-settler colonialists shouldn't 'look back' but be progressive and think about the future (amidst a genocidal war and ethnic cleansing decades-long) but israelis get to talk about how 2000 years ago their ancestors blah blah blah? if israelis want a land of their own, ask germany for a piece. ask america. ask britain. see how well that goes.
From a pragmatic point of view the 1947 UN resolution 181 was a good starting point: the land spilt in two states , one with an Arab majority and Jewish minority and one with a Jewish majority and an Arab minority. This was before any so called "ethnic cleansing".... The Jews accepted and the Arabs refused and they started the war which last chapter is the Hamas invasion of Israel on Oct 7. Now it should be obvious even for antisemite people like you who doesn't want peace/compromise/be progressive. you: "if israelis want a land of their own, ask germany for a piece. ask america. ask britain. " You are not very smart aren't you? A large part of the Jews who emigrate in Israel in 1948 were refugees from East Europe who survived the Holocaust (and Jews expelled from Arabs countries) The "other" Jews have no reason to desire a nation on their own. Duh!
Migration and colonisation has gone on from the beginning of humanity. It's part of the human process. It's right that we think about this process. In the UK we have gone through this process many times. Some are completely lost in the mist of time Neanderthal, cordian , Beaker people, Celts Picts and Angols are trying to be understood. Some are well documented from our Roman occupation our shift to Anglo Saxon, Danes,Norman into our modern era . A natural progression. So if we take Scotland it has it's own identity and It's connection with Celtic tradition however it's so interconnected with the rest of the British Isles it's absolutely impossible to unravel any independent state . Many countries have gone through this process and I feel the Europeans are quite adept at understanding this process These countries are going through many changes over the millennia .
The Palestinians fight Israel because that's what their religion tells them to do. Hamas isn't the anti colonial movement in Algeria. These people want to impose their rwligion in the ejtire world. Its a religious movement not an anti colonial movement.
What are you talking about? This is only going on in your head. Is your belief that if Austrians or Peruvians or Japanese had come to kick them out of their land and were occupying and victimising them on a daily basis, they would be fine with that, and just hate the jews anyway? If that's your belief, you are not living in the real world.
It's both. Hamas argues that Palestine is a religious trust given by god, so it can never be given away to anyone, but the basic argument still is that Israel was built on historically Palestinian land. Hamas tinges anti-colonist arguments with a religious fanaticism that makes it impossible to compromise, as giving up any part of the historical land of Palestine essentially is considered to be blasphemy. So basically it turns this anticolonial argument into a fundamentalist religious dogma.
@@lupen_rein :D It's amazing how perfectly your description applies to the other side. I'm not saying you're completely wrong about the religious ideology of Hamas, but I'm struck by how symmetrical your description is to what they are fighting against.
How about being objective? How about , there was an area of land where there were a bunch of people living, then they separated by religion. This fact doesn't change that they were ALL there before a certain religion took hold.
This is such an absurdly navel-gazing topic. Mankind across the world and throughout history has engaged in colonizing behavior, and it was always seen as totally normal; the strong expanded and the weak suffered (just as slavery was a human universal). There was no difference in the Europeans doing it other than scale, because of their technological and societal advantages. Methinks that if African, Asian, or Native Americans had been the more advanced cultures it would have just gone in the other direction - nothing in their history indicates otherwise as they were enthusiastic practitioners of it when they could. So perhaps we just accept the reality of the past - we didnt do it so why the hell should we apologize for it? Its all a power play anyways, as the argument isnt in good faith. So just say FU to the screeching decolonization leftists, and try our best to be decent towards others NOW and treat people as fairly as possible going forward.
Precisely. After Commodore Perry forced the Japanese to open their ports the Japanese embarked on a massive program of technological and industrial development. And what was one of the first things on the agenda? Military imperialism.
"try our best to be decent towards others NOW and treat people as fairly as possible going forward." OK, see you at the next protest against the current, today, massacre of Palestinians and BDS meet-up, right?
Nah, because the Jews are no more colonizers of that land than the Arab Muslims are. Israel has every same right to exist as any other nation. Go read some non-leftist history.
I will never stop being impressed by the lengths to which some intellectuals go to make lofty, complex rationalizations for why people need to be provided license to hurt other people.
Some of us, you perhaps ; would choose Gandis way; pacifism to the point of death. Other people would rather fight and do harm for what they believe in. Thats how it is.
@@tatonemio6388 His argument was pretty clear: this whole conversation is about making lofty complex rationalisations for providing some people a license to victimise other people. What do you not understand?
@@vfwh I understand perfectly you can't bring any sound argument but only your biased and baseless opinions. Try harder. BTW what you called " lofty complex rationalisations" are also known as "arguments". Normal people listen to other people arguments and bring their own counterarguments. And if this is too difficult to respond don't embarrass yourself with childish posts.
Thank you for sharing this very educational video. It answers lots of questions I had about settler colonialism and systems of Whyte supremacy. P.S. I asked for Adam’s book at my local library and they don’t have it. ☹️ Guess I’ll have to buy it.
Wonderful song here from the master of lo-fi at his lo-fiest and the lyrics keep referencing "decolonize" and "colonize". It's pretty funny. ruclips.net/video/Chui_NG9AF4/видео.html
the logic of the Palestinian Arabs :" We were told that your grandfather raped our grandmother, so our grandchildren have the right to kill your granddaughters."
I do not understand what Michael Shermer is talking about. Over the years I have collected hundreds of old, original, pre-war zionist books & pamphlets. ALL original zionists, from Herzl onwards, ALWAYS talked about colonizing Palestine. Incessantly, all the time. They DEFINED zionism as: 1) a Jewish project 2) a settler project 3) a colonial project. Hence for them zionism was a Jewish colonial settler project. So now Shermer and his friend Kirsch tell us that they know better what zionism is about than the original zionists themselves. What a weird proposition.
The problem that escape all the antisemites like you is those terms must be put in context. As usual the intentional simplification of complex issues is an attempt to rewrite history to support a political agenda. Did you collect all the articles of elite Arab intellectuals of the same period of time to understand their points of view?!? What was the "project" of the Gran Mufti of Jerusalem when visited Hitler in 1941 just months before the Holocaust started?
or maybe, since they needed support from different entities, they used language and concepts, those entities would understand. the jews are home nuff said
@@thewkovacs316 "Palestine doesn't exist! Nobody ever called this place Palestine and these people Palestinian! There was no people there!" * Zionist talk about colonising Palestine and taking it over from Palestinians* "Well, that's because that's how everybody called this land and these people!" That's a lot of cope right there.
I thought I sent a comment here already a couple of hours ago. I wonder where it went? My point is this. If the Jews wanted to successfully establish the state of Israel they shouldn’t have started with ethnic cleansing of the Arabs that already lived in the area. That’s a recipe for disaster and would not result in a peaceful Middle East. As we have seen. And it seems this policy is still ongoing. Place Palestinians in reserves like the American Indians? Or completely expel them?
Oh, do you mean like the Arab Muslims who sought to religiously cleanse everywhere they expanded? Maybe like they've done to Christians and Jews throughout the Middle East to this very day? Why is your starting point 1948? Why not 640 AD? Or 1500 BC?
Congrats Mike, you are officially declared an anti-science reactionary. This guy is no specialist, not even a historian, a political scientist nor an anthropologist. He's a literary critic and a poet. What authority does he have to declare as ideology a concept that is central to those sub-disciplines that study specifically colonial histories, race relations and human rights in ethnically segragated nations? I can't wait to see what reviewers will say about his book in the specialized academic journals. Why not invite a real specialist on the issue, Mike? Someone who'd be able to teach you and your followers what settler colonialism means and refers to. I don't know, people like Rashid Khalidi, Ilan Pappe, Noura Erakat, Somdeep Sen, Roxanne Dumbar-Ortiz, Tariq Dana, Brendan Ciarán Browne, Muhannad Ayyash or many others. Look down in the comments and see how you've turned your "skeptical" audience into rabbid colonialism supporters. Great contribution to the advancement of peace, knowledge and justice, Mike!
You: "you are officially declared an anti-science reactionary." By attacking the person and not the argument you already disqualify yourself from any dialog you: "This guy is no specialist" So what? People are entitled to opinions and offer arguments. *What are your arguments, beside the fallacies?* you: " I can't wait to see what reviewers will say about his book in the specialized academic journals." Yeah, they , unlike you, may offer arguments. Duh! you: "Why not invite a real specialist on the issue, Mike? Someone who'd be able to teach you and your followers what settler colonialism means " What are blabbing about?!? You don't need a specialist to learn the meaning of words and words evolve and change and need context. you: "Rashid Khalidi, Ilan Pappe, Noura Erakat, Somdeep Sen, Roxanne Dumbar-Ortiz, Tariq Dana, Brendan Ciarán Browne, Muhannad Ayyash" All those people offer their own opinions like everybody else, they are not covering the spectrum of the diversity of opinions in the scholarly community. You just show how biased are your opinions. you: "Look down in the comments and see how you've turned your "skeptical" audience into rabbid colonialism supporters. Great contribution to the advancement of peace, knowledge and justice, " Thank you for the sermon, father! *Next time try harder to bring some arguments and not only baseless and biased opinions , fallacies and innuendos.*
The activists that you cite are not really academics, but well-known pro-Palestinian activists and almost all of them are supporters of an extreme version of violent antizionism that glorifies violence and supports the October 7 massacres. Most of them are Palestinian nationalists, most of them commercially write for Al Jazeera, none of them are serious academics. And considering your reaction, you are doing the exact thing that Kirsch criticizes in the book: Supporting extremist zero-sum ideology that views every critic of any of their maximalist arguments as "colonialist supporters".
Please do not equate caring about Palestinians with being anti-jewish. It's inaccurate and dangerous and tedious. I'm not anti-american but i didn't support the iraqi war. I'm not against Russian people but I oppose Russia's attack on Ukraine. I'm not a fan of the Chinese government but I'm don't hate Chinese people.
3 Intresting Facts: 1. God gave the land to Israel 2. Israel never lost a war 3. Israel has nukes 3 حقائق مهتمة: 1. أعطى الله الأرض لإسرائيل 2. لم تخسر إسرائيل أي حرب قط 3. تمتلك إسرائيل أسلحة نووية Genesis 17:7-8: "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your offspring to come, to be God to you and to your offspring to come after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your offspring, and I will be their God.'" تكوين 17: 7-8: "وأقيم عهدي عهدا أبديا بيني وبينك وبين نسلك الآتي، لأكون إلها لك ولنسلك الذي يأتي من بعدك، كل أرض كنعان التي أنت الآن فيها وأقمت غريبا، فأعطيك ولنسلك ملكا أبديا، وأكون لهم إلها».
Israel and Judea were just a couple of dozens of Canaanite societies and they all had myths about local gods promising them land. Interestingly, Judaism is uniquely non-native because the “exile priests” came from Babylon, but the people are native, as usual.
@@mckernan603 What part of forever is beyond your comprehension? Genesis 17:7-8: "I will establish my covenant as an *everlasting* covenant between me and you and your offspring to come, to be God to you and to your offspring to come after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an *everlasting* possession to you and your offspring, and I will be their God.'"
I really don't get the framing of protests against the massacre of tens of thousands of people in terms of considering that the appropriate question to ask is "what's up with all the antisemitism?". What's up with all the massacring, though, no?
whats up with you redefing the response to the massacre of 10/7? war is hell if hanas didnt want was, they shoulda stayed home on 10/7 they can surrender and return the hostages and the war ends if not say goodbye to all your pals in gaza
as an Australian, I agree with you both to a practical extent, but I can't help but be reminded of that Palestinian woman confronting an Israeli settler for living in her family's house, I mean, that's her home. might makes right I guess.. but where does one draw the line? last week, last month, a year, a generation, or two, a century, two? three, a millennia, ten? mucky stuff.. I can tell you what though as someone living in a country colonized two hundred year ago, might makes right is still the way it's enforced, and that comes at a serious cost to the social cohesion it's not easy, I don't have any answers, hopefully Australian society can continue to become more egalitarian
You are confusing private property issues with a conflict between people/nations. Do you think there are no stealing between Arabs? Hamas terrorists are stealing every day Gazan resources, including schools , hospitals etc The issue between Arabs/Jews was first attempted to be resolved by UN resolution 181 with the two states solution (each state with a majority and a minority) The Jews accepted and created Israel (20% is Arabs) , the Arabs refused and tried to destroy Israel but never tried to create an independent state for themselves. The bottom line is clear the Arabs don't want to live in a state with a large Jewish minority or next to a state with a Jewish majority. Nearly a million Jews were force to leave from the Arab countries after 1948. What you think happened to their private properties?
Max Rodinson was the first writer to use the settler colonialism as a characterization of Israel. Rodinson was himself Jewish. Upper echelon of the Jewish population of ancient Palestine left in Roman times. Remaining Hebrew peasantry plus other ethnic groups like Moabites Jebusites etc later adopted Christiniaty, and after 700 AD adopted Islam and Arabic language. So Palestinian Arabs, Moslem and Christian, are the indigenous population evicted after the settlement of European Jewry and later Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews from North Africa, Iraq Iran Yemen etc. There WAS settlement from abroad and displacement of the native population. No scope for any confusion here even if there is no ONE SINGLE Mother country! Australia was settled from the British Isles, then from Italu, Greece, Serbia. It's still a settler colonial state from the perspective of the Abotigines. The same reasoning has to apply in Israel-Palestine.
Maxime Rodinson was a fervent marxist and Islam scholar his opinions on Zionism / history are not more relevant than anybody else or even less because of his fervent anti-nationalistic ideology. For marxists any nationalism is an abomination, they favor empires over nations. That may explain his love for Islam. But you already showed your rabid antisemitism when you used a typical antisemite trope of the good "Jew" accusing the "bad Jews" of something. And your cartoonish story of the Jewish/Zionism/Israel is ridiculous and biased. You even confuse immigration for colonialism...the Italians colonized Australia?!?!? So your argument is : Italy which became nation in 1861 colonized Australia after was already colonized by other countries? BTW your cartoonish history left out the Ottoman Empire and British Mandate. Ouch! They regulated the immigration of the Jews on the land. Those Jewish immigrants purchased the land legally, nobody was displaced. Ouch! You "forgot" that part. Finally, which country speak or used to speak Hebrew beside Israel? That's a little more hard to explain for the marxists and antisemites...
It’s astounding that in an hour-long conversation, the topic of Israel’s apartheid system never came up. The reality is that Israel is actively engaged in settler colonialism in the occupied territories. Before 1967, the vast majority of the population in the West Bank and Gaza were Arab Muslims and Christians, with a small number of mostly Arab Jews. Prior to 1967, Israel had established itself as a Jewish state, but after the war that year, Jewish colonists-known as “settlers”-began the systematic occupation and apartheid of the indigenous Arab population in the West Bank. This process has been ongoing for decades, with settlers and the Israeli government ruthlessly displacing and marginalizing the Palestinian Arabs. These issues aren’t just historical-they’re present, persistent, and deeply woven into the daily lives and struggles of those in the occupied territories. The colonial practices and apartheid policies continue, shaping the conflict and realities in the region today.
Are you seriously this ignorant? Can you count 22 arab states? Do you know anything about the history of the Jews? Jews have and had lived in Israel for thousands of years. Jews were slaughtered, persecuted or expelled from Israel or foreign lands for centuries and scattered across the globe. when 6 million of your people are slaughtered in a holocaust and millions more are expelled or killed in foreign lands, you can lecture me about your high morals. you simply prefer Jews from the past who had no weapons to defend themselves. Guess what, those days are long over. Why don't you study the history of the Palestinians. Their leader met with Hitler to make an alliance to exterminate the Jews. they rejected multiple peace deals because they were certain that the arab countries would wipe Israel out. guess what, they made bad decisions, including bowing down to HAMAS. Ask yourself a very simple question, why doesn't Egypt open the southern border to their Palestinianian cousins?
Gaza wasn't occupied since 2005 so all your demented comments are just ...demented. And the term "apartheid" only refer to racial segregation within the state, not in territories outside the state. You need to stop watching Hamas/Iran propaganda.
Good talk. I’m a fan. But it seemed kind of weird to treat this topic like it’s ancient history when there are currently literal settlers kicking Palestinians off their land. I was hoping to hear some insight into that situation. Weird that they didn’t even bring the topic up. I don’t know if that’s intentional or not. Seems kind of obscurantist.
It did come up when defining the term 'settler' in this particlar context, they just didn't go in to any depth. Maybe read the book if you want to know more.
I appreciate 'that' the conversation is taking place, but I don't feel Adam is representing what he criticizes accurately. Adam operates from a perspective of capitalism (which well intentioned people can argue over but at minimum requires "private property"); it is the water he swims in and thus I don't know that he is aware of the implications. Living in communion with the land and people is both an "old" idea and a "progressive" idea. Workers owning/controlling/directly benefiting from the means of production is explicitly a "leftist" or "progressive" goal and is also how most people indigenous to North America lived prior to being concurred by European peoples. "The way things are is the way things have to be" is a conservative/reactionary perspective and is what informs his opinion that "we cannot roll time back". Of course we cannot go back in time, but we can treat all people with dignity and respect. Dehumanization is required for colonization. "The natives aren't using the land the right way" is always the justification for land seizure... but it's 'their' land. Amazon preventing their employees from unionizing is explicitly against US labor law. The board of directors and C-suit are using the company "the wrong way" according to US law. Is that justification for seizure of assets? Bezos, the board, and C-suit would surely be opposed to such an argument and we, as a society, value that perspective... so why do we not value the corollary in of the indigenous people? At best the conversation misrepresents the opposition and at worst it is explicitly disingenuous. Michael, you have an obligation to interrogate skeptically the claims made by your guests. It does not have to be antagonistic, but it is worthwhile to say, "how do you know what you know? What is your evidence?" every once in a while.
The strong conquer the weak. Is that something new to you? The Inca conquered and colonized the Chimu. Ancient Japanese conquered and colonized the Ainu. Are they unique? Or is that the human condition?. Everyone who is human is guilty of being human. Move on, and stop looking backwards. Grievance peddling has no future.
@@patharvard The usual antisemite propaganda directly sourced from the ideology (ISIS/Iran/etc) that justify/honor/encourage the horror of Oct 7 / Holocaust denial / suicide bombing / terrorism etc Gaza wasn't occupied or under Israel laws when Hamas attacked Israel and intentionally target unarmed civilians The term Apartheid only apply to laws within the state, there is no Apartheid within Israel where Arabs are 20% of the population. The whole argument is fallacy called false equivalence. The occupation laws are security laws which any country would implement to control terrorist and violence against civilians. But the racist/antisemite are easily spot when they openly show they have double standard one for the Jews and one for themselves. Just a quick look at what happened in Gaza when Hamas took power and killed hundred of Palestinians for "security" reasons.
@@tatonemio6388 That's an ad hominem dodge. Try to prove that Zionism isn't an idea. Try to prove that Zionists are not people. Try to prove hating Zionism is hating Zionists. I'm always willing to have my mind changed.
@@SkepticalSpectrum Ad hominem is attacking a character rather than an argument. You have presented zero arguments but only a silly list of equivalences (A = B) The sentence "Hating Zionism isn't hating Zionists." is typical antisemite/racist trope from racist people that try to deny their hatred for Jews/others. And I don't have to prove anything, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
You would have to define Zionism first. If your argument is that Zionism is settler colonialism and therefore you reject it, most Israelis would disagree with your classification that Zionism ultimately and always is settler colonialism. You can argue that the idea of Zionism that settler extremists have been pushing in the occupied territories is to be rejected, that would be a different argument and one that most people would be able to get behind. But if your argument is that every form of Zionism meaning the foundational ideology of the state of Israel necessarily is to be rejected, you are saying that Israel has to be destroyed and that will not fly for most Israelis, as you would justify the destruction of their homeland or even their expulsion or genocide. In fact, that anti-Zionist argument would be the exact thing that opponents of settler colonialism think Israel does.
Palestinian people are the same people who have been living there for 4000 years at least. Jews are descendants from people from Palestine and but moved around the Persian, Greek and Roman empires. They should be able to move to Palestine, but they should not be able to set up a state there, especially not one of demographic majority through ethnic cleansing.
You obviously have no idea what are talking about. There is not such think as "Palestinian people are the same people who have been living there for 4000 years " The "Palestinians" as people is a concept maybe 100 year old or less. The Jewish people is the only original surviving people of the region or you think the Arab language was born in Palestine? How come Judea/Samaria/Jerusalem are from Hebrew language?!?!
@tatonemio6388 sorry mate, but you're wrong. It has been called Palestine since 500BC. Israel and Judah only existed for a few hundred years prior to that Judiasm was developed after that. The people of Paelstine are a mix of all that history ... and their genetics demonstrate this. The language thing is stupid. Hebrew was a dead language at the time of Jesus!! They were speaking Aramiac. Arabic is just another semitic language that locals took up through medieval times as Islam became the culmination of west Asian monotheism.
@@matthewvicendese1896 First you say "Palestinian people " and after I corrected you, you switched to "Palestine" (as the name of the region). It's the moving the goalposts fallacy, troll harder. you: " their genetics demonstrate this" Ouch! People are not determined by genetics...unless you a racist. "People" is determined by a mixture of culture/history/language/religion/values So besides the Jewish people what other original people (as defined above) still exist? Definitely Arab people are not. you: "Hebrew was a dead language at the time of Jesus" Irrelevant, the fact the names are derived from Hebrew and not Arabic tell who are the "native" before the Islamic Empire colonized the region. And Hebrew was still used for centuries as the main language of the Torah for religious purposes. any more irrelevant, biased and baseless opinions or fallacies you would like to share?
I find it interesting that every group apart from Europeans are called ‘indigenous peoples’. We are also indigenous, Europe is our indigenous homeland.
Officially the only indigenous people in Europe are the Sami people. They came to Finland some 3500 years ago. Finns came about 3000 years ago. It is absurd that we are compare to those to moved to the new world in the last 500 years.
@@okaro6595 There is no archaeological evidence that the Sami are the original inhabitants of all of Finland. The evidence is the Finns came first to Southern Finland.
And that's foundationally irrelevant because the Finns in the south and the Sami in the North intermarried and now the Finns have some Sami DNA.
Yes you are and you have demographic domination depite the hysteria of being "replaced". Settler colonies however have the colonizers as demographically dominant and the indigenous as smaller political forces. The exceptions are countries like South Africa. Once Palestine is free, it will be in a similar category to South Africa.
@@SuperKripke What hysteria? It’s a fact that the native populations of many western nations will become the minority within the next 50-100 years. This is what all of the peer reviewed research suggests. And each nation has consistently voted against mass uncontrolled immigration only for our governments (who do not represent us) to ignore the will of the people and continue to increase immigration and force it on us. These are all irrefutable facts.
And by ‘settled coloniser’ I assume you only mean white western nations whilst you conveniently ignore the rest. This manipulation and deceit has gone on for too long, we’re not tolerating it anymore.
@@SuperKripke
But there is no Palestine.
It never existed & never will.
In Canada you see the idea of settler colonialism quite frequently. It is used mostly for the following purposes…
1) To justify the burning of churches and the desecration of monuments.
2) To argue for control and ownership of vast resources and lands made incredibly valuable, primarily by the efforts of the colonialists.
3) To justify constant criticism of and slander towards colonialists. The obviously false but still often repeated Kamloops mass grave story is probably the best example of that.
4) To obtain reduced sentences in criminal trials.
5) To obtain funds for indiginization and decolonization of everything from place names, to museums. In British Columbia these names are written in a script that is very difficult to interpret, even more difficult to enter into a computer and that nobody uses. And this after indigenous scholars are paid to come up with these names. Decolonization is very much about wealth transfer.
5) This is probably the worst one. Colonization is used to excuse incredible abuse of women and children on dysfunctional First Nations. The idea is that since we sent aboriginal children to residential schools where they were abused it is our fault that those children grew up to be abusers themselves. There is probably some truth to that but it is also true that stories of residential school abuse was grossly exaggerated because they were told in expectation of direct or indirect financial reward and without an opportunity for the accused to confront the accuser. It doesn’t help either that positive stories about residential schools, of which there are many, are almost completely ignored.
Anyway, a lot of Canadians are getting sick of it. Especially since they have seen recent rising calls for residential school denialism laws which would make this very post of mine illegal.
you're some deluded conservative christian.
residential schools were a inquisition of enforced religious indoctrination perpetrated on the local population of this country by our government and christians.
christianity should be outlawed in this country for what it did and continues to do.
we should be raiding the vatican for all their pedophiles to stand trial for their crimes around the world.
should be giving reparation for all they stole from slaves too.
if you christians had any empathy, you'd stf and do what's right.
but your bible gives excuses for being cvnts.
Much, if not all that Adam Kirsch says about the Arab-Israeli conflict is factually incorrect. He may be Jewish, and he may know a lot about history, but his comments about the A-I conflict are sterile. One example is a 2 state solution is the only solution. He doesn’t appreciate that the 2 states are both Arab (Gaza and Judea and Samaria), with no Jews in the middle. He doesn’t appreciate that it’s a religious conflict borne out of the words of the Koran. that there will be no Jews in our (Muslim Arabs) midst, and even the trees will speak and tell you where a Jew is hiding. He doesn’t appreciate that the Arabs had Gaza all to themselves since 2005, and all they did was turn it into a base for launching wars against Israel, not offering any protection for the Gazan Arabs when Israel would justifiably retaliate. He speaks as if Israel never offered the Arabs peace treaties some 4 or 5 times, each being rejected because they were all 2 state solutions. I’m aghast at his lack of appreciation of the true nature of this religious conflict. Every land for peace deal resulted in Israel being attacked. He doesn’t mention the two intifadas. Shameful bias on his part. Seems like he won’t admit it, but he may actually believe it’s all Israel’s fault. Far from it. Islam wants to spread its ideology everywhere within, and beyond the Middle East.
The oldest archaeological site in Gaza is a Jewish synagogue which predates Islam by 100 years.
The Nation of Israel was founded in 1047 BCE, 1800 years before Islam.
The Quran says numerous times, Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jews/Israelites/Hebrew people.
And? You think that if aliens came back to earth and told us it used to be theirs but they got kicks out by the people from like atlantis, you think we will leave to mars?
@@achrafd26 🤣🤣🤣🤣
WHAT?!
@@achrafd26 Well that's a non sequitur; a more valid question is, upon whose land is the Dome of the Rock built? What is the Western Wall a wall of? And another more valid question - are the Islamic conquests of all of North Africa and the Middle East, going back to the 800's, not settler colonialism? Do the indigenous peoples of those areas not have a claim against their Arab conquerors?
@@achrafd26Gregor is correct that has nothing to do with anything in the real world. But you might ask yourself whether the Palestinians who have been exiled and who live all over the place have an end date to their claim if return. Then, after you answer on the negative, ask yourself when the Jews end-date was, don't bother checking your hypocrisy, and then pat yourself on the back for finally clearing all that up like a good white person.
@@achrafd26are you on dope ?
The "far right" party just won in Austria. With one third of Austrians being of foreign background (1st or 2nd generation) and 33% of school kids in Vienna being muslim. How can we not heed the call of native Europeans wanting to conserve their country and culture?
Hundreds of thousands of Jews move to Palestine with the explicit aim of replacement and demographic domination of the region: it's what God wanted 👌
Muslims form less than 10% of European nations: hysteria ensues 😬
This is exactly why this settler colonialism idea can be very dangerous because it can be used by extremists against people they consider to be "foreign". You are kind of proving the whole point Kirsch is making here.
Diversity is actually strength! ❤💪👍
@@nicolasolton They are having problems with teachers losing motivation because of the large amount of schoolchildren that can't speak German.
If that's true than homogeneous society would crumble before diverse ones. That's not the case. It doesn't mean diverse society can't or doesn't work , but all this sloganeering about diverse societies are stronger or better simply isn't true. But it makes for good propaganda. @@nicolasolton
It is weird that the people complaining about colonization select a certain part of history to start from, yet they don't start when people moved out of what is now Africa and colonized the world then. It only starts, for those complaining, after hominids colonized the world when leaving present-day Africa.
How about we stop looking at things through lenses that distort our view and just look at reality as it is?
Edit: Added comment
Yeah, those folks get really steamed when you point out that, with the exception of Africans who never left, *everyone*, is a "settler/colonist".
Not exactly the same thing. Israel was specifically a project to settle European Jews in Palestine, the project was founded around the same time as Germans were conjuring up ideas around lebensraum (late 1800s), whilst not official doctrine at the time, it's early ideas were beginning to take shape, it wasn't just the Germans, ethno nationalist ideas were ripe at the time, the ideas that gave birth to Israel were no different "we are superior by the grace of God, it is our land and we will displace the existing population" go read the words of the original founders of Israel, it mirrors the exact same philosophy of the British and the Americans, and, the same rationalizations the Germans used to invade lands like Poland.
It's about all of those things you mentioned. And the anti-Zionists acknowledge the longer-term history.
But they are primarily focused on ameliorating whatever suffering we can at this particular time in history.
Negotiations must be had, and anti-Zionists recognize it and promote it.
But negotiation is difficult to come by in this situation. Force often takes over.
The colonization of Palestine was forced and so was the ensuing ghettoizing of the Palestinians.
Now we can't go back. We have to move forward, and find ways to force attain real negotiations.
The great statistician George Box said “All models are wrong but some are useful”.
Not to derail us with epistemology, but my point is that your advice to “look at reality as it really is” depends on presuppositions about the existence, quality, and human-observability of a singular objective reality.
Indeed, historiography, psychology, economics, and myriad other fields tend to show that human beings are intrinsically subjective observers, whose experience is deeply shaped by “lenses”. Even the “theory of mind” most children develop as toddlers is essentially unfalsifiable, but is ubiquitous for its utility and congruity to our other beliefs.
To be clear, not all lenses are equally reliable (to the extent that is even testable). However, I have yet to encounter any piece of information conceivable without some “framing lenses”.
In summary, discarding all lenses is not an option to the empiricist, and counter to the point of presuppositionalism.
@波得天 There is only one objective reality. Out perspectives of that objective reality vary, but there is only one objective reality.
Why does he not mention South Africa, the ultimate so called settler colonial state?
30 years of nomadic existence in the desert would leave no archeological evidence .. nomads don't leave any concentrated evidence
North, Central, and South America. The United States is one of 36 American countries.
America is literally in the name. United States of America. I don't understand why people miss this.
@@Mountainshark The word "of" is key to understanding. It makes the distinction the Untied States is a country in (North) America. Unfourtantly the word America is used as a metaphor by many to describe a single country the United States. God Bless America?
@cosmicsquid America is in the name. No other country in North or South America has the name America in the name. What should be used instead of American? United Stateser? Uniteder Unitedican? It doesn't make sense. America is short for the United States of America. It is not implying that the US is the only country in the Americas. FYI, Central America is not a continent. So ignorant yet so confident and loud.
@@MountainsharkUnited states of central America existed for many years in the 1800s. All the small countries south of mexico being part of it. Also Mexico is really The United States of Mexico😅
@ballenboy You are acting like you know something that I didn't know. Central America is not a continent. Yes, I know the official name of Mexico is Estados Unidos Mexicanos. I'm literally Mexican and have a Mexican passport. Bringing up facts that I already know doesn't help you. Name a country with America in the name? There is only one country with America in the name.
why do all palestinian people have arab surnames.......
Dunno, because they are arabs?
@@uchicha666 where do arabs come from......
@@dai19721Arab peninsula.
@@sarral2008 thats not in palestine .
Jews switched also religions..
that means not they are not unconplete not worth .. historical graves show both sign f.e.
The American Revolution was hardly anti-colonial. It was fought by and for settler colonialists. Maybe it was anti-monarchy.
You need a mother country to be a colony. The Revolution destroyed that connection -- and your argument.
@@SoviCalcnonsense.
@@SoviCalc What is a Cherokee reservation? The revolutionaries in the American Revolution weren't the indigenous people of central North America. They were settler colonialists, and they didn't stop colonizing indigenous people after they ceased to have a colonial overlord themselves.
@restonthewind What can you tell me about the Anasazi? Nothing; and neither could the Zuni who squatted in their ruins. What did the earliest Easter Islanders record in their language, Rongorongo? The people living there when when Europeans arrived had no idea - because they had long ago erased them. Ever wonder how the Toltecs furnished their daily sacrifices to the plumed serpent? Yes, occasionally the source was prisoners of war - but that was unsustainable. Mesoamericans were agricultural too, and they kept human farms. Yes, humans raised from infancy in cages, fattened like livestock, for the sole purpose of "donating" their still-beating hearts to the priests of Huitzilopochtli. Bernal Diaz could barely keep his composure as he wrote his eyewitness account through scorching tears.
Wouldn't you find it fascinating to know how Greek Egyptians thought - how North Africans saw the world and felt about their roles in it? I would; but I can't because Mohammed, the most successful settler colonialist of all, wiped them out completely in the 7th century.
Civilization is a layer cake of graveyards. My ancestors are Shawnee. How are their domains determined? By the shared "range" of Algonquin languages. That means many voices vying for the same land. You think we didn't have arrows and tomahawks before Columbus?
@@SoviCalcSeems more a semantical question of what is “anti-colonialism”, motivated by not being a colony vs against colonialism. By default “the colonies” becoming an independent entity ended the US’s self-identification as a colony, we continued the activity of colonizing. Gentrification is arguably colonization.
With respect of the British colonization (and subsequently the United States) against the will of the people who REALLY owned the land [Native Americans]. I this framing needs to be examined. The 500 Indian nations that roved North America, 1. Didn't think of ownership in the way we think of it in our culture, and 2. They were constantly warring with one another and leveraging brutality in ways that would make a Navy Seal nauseous, in other words, the purity test and search for moral clarity is very murky, which is not to say I endorse abuse, persecution and mistreatment, only that you'd be hard pressed to find a pair of clean hands ANYWHERE in this human project.
Exactly. Every piece of land was conquered and reconquered by different tribes over thousands of years.
The people right to self-determination on the land has nothing to do with the "morality" of the people but with the connection to the land.
So called Native Americans did not own all the land. The owned only some parts.
@@tatonemio6388"RIGHT to self determination"? What value does claiming a 'right' to self determination or a connection to a place have to a newcomer, new tribe, or military force that does not respect your 'right' to self determination or care about your claim to have a connection with a place? Enter every battle, territorial dispute, and war that has been fought throughout history.
@@davidlenett8808
Again, "morality" is irrelevant only the connection to the land by a "people".
A nomad people has no connection with the land.
And the concepts of "owning a land" ("people who REALLY owned the land" ) and living in a land are different.
A people that only hunt specific animals and move constantly from place to place can't claim as its own the land where they hunt.
Every person who has lived on this earth was born on this earth: we are all indigenous people.
I would say Earthlings, & everyone outside of Africa are “immigrants” or descended from people who emigrated from Africa. At one point there was maybe as few as 1000 humans; we are literally one family/tribe. We killed off the other hominids, then turned our xenophobia & aggression on each other.
@@goclimbsomethingyour xenophobia is between your left and right hemispheres.
And we all settlers
@@tuckerbugeater In my corpus callosum? Hmm, wouldn’t xenophobia be a frontal cortex “resident?” Neurology isn’t my expertise, but doesn’t seem like it’s yours either.. 😉
A lot of people thought World War II put the kibosh on nationalism, but the ideology is more robust than many hoped.
Of course it delegitimizes nations, because nations were never legitimate. Thats the WHOLE logic behind settler colonialism. Here in Canada the government now talks about 'nation to nation' discussions with first nations, but of course that never pertains to anything but rhetoric.
What nobody wants to talk about is that most 'nations' were created after world war two, and even here in Canada NOBODY ever voted to 'join' canada except Newfoundland in a referendum that is now accepted as being crooked.
What nobody wants to talk about is DIVIDING the land with first nations. This is western colonialism in a nutshell and if you want to talk about 'legitimacy' all you have to do is look at western norms. When the crimea wanted to separate from Ukraine, it was pointed out that NO part of a country can actually leave a country WITHOUT that countryes permission. In other words, its up to the imperial power whether it lets you go.
After the Quebec referendum Canada signed in the 'Clarity Act' which means any province that wants to leave, can only do so with FEDERAL approval. Which is like saying a slave can only be free if the master decides it.
We saw this play out in Spain when the basque region voted for independance and Canada, the US and western europe cheered when Spain ARRESTED the politicians who had been duly elected and held the peaceful referendum.
So forget 'settler colonialism', this is BLATANT 'imperialism'.
Glad you pointed that out
There is no palestine and never was. name one king or president prior to the Egyptian Arafat. People need to learn some basic history.
Yeah, because having a king is really what makes you a people isn't it?
Sheep mentality.
@@vfwh
Then the question is what differentiate an Arab Muslim from Amman and one from Jaffa in term of culture/language/traditions/religion?
@@tatonemio6388 And that's relevant to this conversation because.....?
There's only one question that matters: is there a land, that all early zionists like Herzel and every one else actually called Palestine, where some people lived since generations, and who were then colonised and kicked out of their homes, their villages destroyed, and all that?
Whether these people eat humus or play a kind of oud like Syrians or Moroccans is so unbelievably irrelevant to the feeling of specific people who grew up somewhere and visited their grand parents at the cemetery around the corner, fell in love there and planned to build an olive press in their field.
Who cares about whether they once had some king that we've heard about (good for them if they didn't - I don't know), or if they sing different songs from the people a few hundred kilometres away? How does that have any bearing on whether it's OK to destroy the villages that they live in and telling them that they don't exist?
The fact that you care about that shows that you live in a fantasy world where this kind of blood and war nationalism toxic mindset rules your affect. It's not good for you man.
@@vfwh
Because of your comment " having a king is really what makes you a people isn't it?" require you to tell what make a people with a right for self-determination.
And yes, Kings/Monarchies can be part of what make a people.
you: " so unbelievably irrelevant to the feeling of specific people who grew up somewhere and visited their grand parents at the cemetery around the corner, fell in love there and planned to build an olive press in their field."
Great! So Israelis are good to stay. You are not very smart, aren't you.
you: "There's only one question that matters: is there a land, that all early zionists like Herzel and every one else actually called Palestine, where some people lived since generations, and who were then colonised and kicked out of their homes, their villages destroyed, and all that?"
1) Palestine is the name the Roman Empire gave to the land where Israel existed
2) The people living in Palestine were not called Palestinians since Palestine was not a land defined by a specific "people"
They were Arabs coming from the Arab peninsula during the Islamic Empire
3) "Colonization" require a motherland so which country also use Hebrew?
4) 20% of the current Israel population is Arab
5) Before 1948 all land owned by Jews was legally purchased
6) The "Palestinians" always refused to build their own state on the land next to a Jewish state.
They refused in 1948 and wedged a war to Israel which they lost, between 1948 and 1967 when part of the land was controlled by other Arab countries and still they refused to build a state in Gaza when was free from Israel occupation starting in 2005.
The area was referred to and named by the colonial Romans. Literally occupiers of the kingdom of Israel. What you smoking bro??
When has deconolinzation ever ended well?
Perhaps Hong Kong, but are there any other examples? Every other example of when the British or French were driven out, I read of bloodshed and a decrease in the standard of living. After giving it some thought, I conclude that colonization has has a net positive effect on the world. What am I missing?
You might want to ask the denizens of Hong Kong about that.
Perhaps decolonizations would end better if the US didn’t have a habit of attempting regime change operations and economic warfare against formerly colonized peoples.
Currently 30% of the world is under US sanctions. That includes 60% of the world’s poorest countries; most of which were once colonized.
Nothing
Well, to put it bluntly history and economic development are “path-dependent”, so I suggest focusing on specific countries. To demonstrate the non-specificity of “colonialism” as a term:
Homo-erectus competing with Neanderthals, Phoenician colonization of the Mediterranean, greek colonies in Sicily, Italian colonies in Britain, Japanese colonies in Korea, Chinese colonies in ancient Yunaan, Iberian colonies in the western hemisphere, French colonies in indochina, British colonies in the Raj, German colonies in Africa, eastern europe, ect… I will end here. Obviously these are very very different, so I will guess you are asking about the 20th century decolonization of European territories which itself stems from the 19th century imperialism of Europe superpowers made temporarily so by the circumstances of the rather different colonialism which took place in the age of sail, “discovery” ect. To conflate everything is to have no concrete thing to examine.
So, focusing on some challenges associated with 20th century decolonization, I can name a few from memory. I strongly suggest you read on your own.
1. Decolonization is a very poor measure of the counterfactual (never colonized). Many areas really do need decades or centuries to recover.
2. “Decolonization” in the international sense of reaffirmed sovereignty has often led to the co-opting of the colonial state and various instruments of autocracy and extraction by the new local elites (see “Why Nations Fail”, Acemaglu and Robinson).
3. Furthermore the power vacuum, opportunity for kleptocracy, and sudden loss of a unifying external enemy is a recipe for violence.
4. We are English speakers… so yeah we are probably more exposed to “post-colonial” apologia. Just look at Winston Churchill’s contest legacy in the UK and abroad.
5. Colonialism doesn’t have an on/off button, and many “post-colonial” states have remained reliant on international superpowers well after achieving“independence”(see “Dead Aid” by Dambisa Moyo). Indeed, the point of having 5 permanent members of the UN security council with veto-powers was to formalize the great powers’ privileges in a diplomatic forum. I suspect it would be familiar- though hopefully better for global peace than- the players in the “Concert of nations” system which defined European international affairs after the Napoleonic wars, and helped Europe turn its military adventurism outwards to controlling raw resources and thereby building up its economy through industrial exports. That of course didn’t last, partly because after 2 WWs America refused to bail out their European debtors indefinitely without movement towards decolonization.
6., the cold war and its aftermath cant really be called “post-colonial” im the general sense. Rather, scope, nature, players, propaganda, ect merely changes as it always has over time.
7. To get back to your question…. I think that many people did not see benefits from decolonization in their life-time. Often times resistance to colonization has led to sabotage of economic opportunities, social cohesion, physical infrastructure, and violence against human beings. That has included collective punishment, sterilization, mass killings, human right violations, and yes sometimes the g-word (I wont make a list for you). Was it worth it for them? For their grand children? Does the answer change if a former colonial soldier turned guerrilla turned warlord took control after independence?
People are responsible for their own choices, but the human costs of colonization outlive the contemporary benefactors. The failures of decolonization therefore are a stain on the dignity of both the former colonial masters and subjects.
8. Anyone who sees that as a special criticism of their tribe or heroes ought to read history. You will be humbled by the global prevalence of human-made suffering. I hope you can see you have so much power in the present to avoid past mistakes. Children can see the wisdom in the phrase “two wrongs do not make a right”. Or as the bible says “those who live by the sword shall die by the sword”.
I say open up the U.S. borders more, so we can feel like it was for the indigenous people
Re: America was started as an anti-colonial movement.
The British Empire had signed binding treaties with First Nations peoples respecting their territorial claims. The American Founding Fathers had property claims in those territories. So one of the Intolerable Acts was the prevention of the further westward expansion of the British American colonists.
So you could easily make the argument that the American Revolution had as one of its major causes the desire to engage in more colonialism, which was prevented by the British.
Most of this anti-Israel sophistry most definitely comes both the Marxist and anticolonizer metaphors. There also was a concerted effort in 1970's African American nationalism to develop those "equations" of injustice, and who is the enemy. Israel partly became the enemy simply because those equations also embraced Islamism: religion was one of the ways people were "colonized" and Africans were commonly converted from Islam to Christianity when imported as slaves. That "realization" led to many of the more radical African Americans to convert back to Islam, and consequently created an automatic affiliation with Islamic causes, such as the Palestinian conflict. This especially is true of the forced notion of Jews somehow being "colonizers" of Judea while failing to acknowledge Muslims colonized the area as well during their conquests of those areas.
The Jewish religion stands out in a positive light as compared to Islam and Christianity because of their lack of history of proselytization.
I wonder if the indigenous Americans, Australians, etc. would actually trade their current lives for "pre-colonial" pre-industrial, per-scientific lives. I think not. If not, this conversation is hypocritical at best.
You’ll never have an answer tho.
You don't know, do you? Have you been to Australia? Do you think that native Australian people feel better now than they did when they roamed their land?
Do you feel that native Americans today have more dignity and sense of empowerment in their lives than they did before?
I don't know, and neither do you. I really don't think that there's an obvious answer to this question, unless you take for granted that living in a modern city or having a TV just magically makes human lives better. I don't find that obvious at all.
That view of people and culture is fatally Romantic. People live individual lives. They seek food, shelter and sexual partners, on their own. For these kinds of lives, eating grubs, because you have to, being killed in the raid from a neighboring troop and dying in childbirth are not noble and only a fool picks the uncertainty, hard work and erstwhile nobility in trade for access to a dentist.
@@jamestierney3572 I'm glad for you that you actually know these things for sure about all the human "people/ individuals".
Plus, you also may have an ignorant view of what life was like for peoples who didn't have a European way of life.
You are making a hell of a lot of assumptions about a) counterfactuals (who knows how these societies would have evolved if they hadn't been massacred by europeans?) and b) actual facts that you don't know (how pre-colonisation people lived and felt about their lives).
The thing is, you're right about people being individuals and making choices about their lives. What you have only an ideological point of view about however, is what "shelter", "a good sexual partner", "good food" means for people who are not you.
Since you seem to be such an evolutionist hobbyist, have you heard about sexual selection? It basically means how species evolve through preferential mating choices, which includes all kinds of other preferential environment things that have no specific fitness benefit, and may even have a fitness cost.
For sure it's all about spreading genes, but spreading genes is not all about maximising calories.
First of all, your invoking of sexual selection is incoherent to my ear. Sexual Selection is a vital part of natural selection, rife in the animal kingdom and human societies. What's your point.
As for assumptions, you are the one claiming special insight into how archaic people felt. Even if you are right, so what? Archaic people, like all of us, made the best of what they had and what they know. Could Australasian Aborigines eventually had an Enlightenment and acquired science, medicine, etc. Probably. But it would behoove you to look into the history that led to the European Enlightenment as well as the decisions made in China, India and the Levant that sidetracked their near misses. There is no certainty of outcome in evolution, biological or cultural. There is only good and bad luck, loaded with chance and uncertainty.
My point remains standing. Most of the descendants of cultures met and conquered by Europeans will not willingly re-invent themselves by completely abandoning all "western" ideas, tools and cultural products. They are too smart, too focused on their own comfort and happiness and that of their children.
Is this a travesty of justice, of course. The same travesty of justice that exists in the Congo when a troop with 10 fighting males kills the 7 in the neighboring troop and takes over their females & territory. Searching for Cosmic Justice is naive and self indulgent virtue signalling.
What colonialism? Jews came home after many years of exile.
many many ...many ...many...many...many...many...
White europeans coming 'home' and wiping out native population
@@sebbosebbo9794
there is no "Statutes of Limitations" for the right of self-determination or any other fundamental right.
@@StraussBR
1) 50% of Jewish Israeli are descendant from Jews expelled from Arab counties, they are very much not white. No Jews are left in many Arab countries
2) 2 millions "wiped out native population" Arab/Muslims live in Israel as citizens ...the Jews are not good as wiping out people as the Arabs
@@tatonemio6388 Who was there before them?
Thanks for the discussion. My copy of Adam Kirsch's book was delivered today and I look forward to reading it!
Brilliant ! thanks :) indeed,
those who are hell bent on correcting the past are bound to destroy the future too.
while those who profess to correct the future often misuse & abuse the present.
for every Great solution creates great new problems...
"Rhodesia where the colonists dominated and exploited the native population"
This is only partly true, the black population also benefitted in multiple ways by being ruled by a technologically advanced minority - such as education, healthcare, food security, infrastructure etc.
The irony is that when a "non-white" elite in history (or a black tribe in Africa) rule over a minority it is never expressed in these overt racial tones - thus the extreme anticolonialists are themselves racist.
The Mughals in India comes to mind: the Mughal elite, largely Muslim and of Central Asian origin, governed a majority Hindu population for centuries.
Another example: the Tutsi minority ruling over the Hutu in Rwanda
Because people are stupid like that.
So stupid to criticize a genocide by Israel.
@@mckernan603 You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
so palestinians and anti-settler colonialists shouldn't 'look back' but be progressive and think about the future (amidst a genocidal war and ethnic cleansing decades-long) but israelis get to talk about how 2000 years ago their ancestors blah blah blah? if israelis want a land of their own, ask germany for a piece. ask america. ask britain. see how well that goes.
From a pragmatic point of view the 1947 UN resolution 181 was a good starting point: the land spilt in two states , one with an Arab majority and Jewish minority and one with a Jewish majority and an Arab minority. This was before any so called "ethnic cleansing"....
The Jews accepted and the Arabs refused and they started the war which last chapter is the Hamas invasion of Israel on Oct 7.
Now it should be obvious even for antisemite people like you who doesn't want peace/compromise/be progressive.
you: "if israelis want a land of their own, ask germany for a piece. ask america. ask britain. "
You are not very smart aren't you?
A large part of the Jews who emigrate in Israel in 1948 were refugees from East Europe who survived the Holocaust (and Jews expelled from Arabs countries)
The "other" Jews have no reason to desire a nation on their own. Duh!
Migration and colonisation has gone on from the beginning of humanity. It's part of the human process. It's right that we think about this process.
In the UK we have gone through this process many times. Some are completely lost in the mist of time Neanderthal, cordian , Beaker people, Celts Picts and Angols are trying to be understood. Some are well documented from our Roman occupation our shift to Anglo Saxon, Danes,Norman into our modern era .
A natural progression.
So if we take Scotland it has it's own identity and It's connection with Celtic tradition however it's so interconnected with the rest of the British Isles it's absolutely impossible to unravel any independent state . Many countries have gone through this process and I feel the Europeans are quite adept at understanding this process These countries are going through many changes over the millennia .
But now we know better and abhor ethnic cleansing and stealing.
The Palestinians fight Israel because that's what their religion tells them to do. Hamas isn't the anti colonial movement in Algeria. These people want to impose their rwligion in the ejtire world.
Its a religious movement not an anti colonial movement.
What are you talking about? This is only going on in your head. Is your belief that if Austrians or Peruvians or Japanese had come to kick them out of their land and were occupying and victimising them on a daily basis, they would be fine with that, and just hate the jews anyway?
If that's your belief, you are not living in the real world.
It's both. Hamas argues that Palestine is a religious trust given by god, so it can never be given away to anyone, but the basic argument still is that Israel was built on historically Palestinian land. Hamas tinges anti-colonist arguments with a religious fanaticism that makes it impossible to compromise, as giving up any part of the historical land of Palestine essentially is considered to be blasphemy. So basically it turns this anticolonial argument into a fundamentalist religious dogma.
@@lupen_rein :D
It's amazing how perfectly your description applies to the other side. I'm not saying you're completely wrong about the religious ideology of Hamas, but I'm struck by how symmetrical your description is to what they are fighting against.
@@lupen_rein what historical land of Palestine. There was never such a state? What are they giving up on exactly?
@@vfwh Mmm...no not at all. Zionism is not based on religion.
How about being objective? How about , there was an area of land where there were a bunch of people living, then they separated by religion. This fact doesn't change that they were ALL there before a certain religion took hold.
This is such an absurdly navel-gazing topic. Mankind across the world and throughout history has engaged in colonizing behavior, and it was always seen as totally normal; the strong expanded and the weak suffered (just as slavery was a human universal). There was no difference in the Europeans doing it other than scale, because of their technological and societal advantages. Methinks that if African, Asian, or Native Americans had been the more advanced cultures it would have just gone in the other direction - nothing in their history indicates otherwise as they were enthusiastic practitioners of it when they could.
So perhaps we just accept the reality of the past - we didnt do it so why the hell should we apologize for it? Its all a power play anyways, as the argument isnt in good faith. So just say FU to the screeching decolonization leftists, and try our best to be decent towards others NOW and treat people as fairly as possible going forward.
Precisely. After Commodore Perry forced the Japanese to open their ports the Japanese embarked on a massive program of technological and industrial development. And what was one of the first things on the agenda? Military imperialism.
"try our best to be decent towards others NOW and treat people as fairly as possible going forward."
OK, see you at the next protest against the current, today, massacre of Palestinians and BDS meet-up, right?
Nah, because the Jews are no more colonizers of that land than the Arab Muslims are. Israel has every same right to exist as any other nation. Go read some non-leftist history.
I will never stop being impressed by the lengths to which some intellectuals go to make lofty, complex rationalizations for why people need to be provided license to hurt other people.
who care about what you "will never stop being impressed" of?!?
Bring some sound argument and not baseless opinion if you have any
Some of us, you perhaps ; would choose Gandis way; pacifism to the point of death. Other people would rather fight and do harm for what they believe in. Thats how it is.
@@tatonemio6388 His argument was pretty clear: this whole conversation is about making lofty complex rationalisations for providing some people a license to victimise other people.
What do you not understand?
@@vfwh
I understand perfectly you can't bring any sound argument but only your biased and baseless opinions.
Try harder.
BTW what you called " lofty complex rationalisations" are also known as "arguments". Normal people listen to other people arguments and bring their own counterarguments.
And if this is too difficult to respond don't embarrass yourself with childish posts.
Thank you for sharing this very educational video. It answers lots of questions I had about settler colonialism and systems of Whyte supremacy.
P.S. I asked for Adam’s book at my local library and they don’t have it. ☹️
Guess I’ll have to buy it.
The fact that the blurb from 1997 could have been written yesterday is depressing.
Whenever I hear the term "Indigenous peoples of the World", I always think if Europeans are aliens?
Great discussion
Wonderful song here from the master of lo-fi at his lo-fiest and the lyrics keep referencing "decolonize" and "colonize". It's pretty funny.
ruclips.net/video/Chui_NG9AF4/видео.html
Utopia originates with Plato's Republic.
You had better quote Ayn Rand's despicable comment on Native Americans.
pay for the sins of someone who isn't even related
the logic of the Palestinian Arabs :" We were told that your grandfather raped our grandmother, so our grandchildren have the right to kill your granddaughters."
I do not understand what Michael Shermer is talking about. Over the years I have collected hundreds of old, original, pre-war zionist books & pamphlets. ALL original zionists, from Herzl onwards, ALWAYS talked about colonizing Palestine. Incessantly, all the time.
They DEFINED zionism as:
1) a Jewish project
2) a settler project
3) a colonial project.
Hence for them zionism was a Jewish colonial settler project.
So now Shermer and his friend Kirsch tell us that they know better what zionism is about than the original zionists themselves. What a weird proposition.
One of the most based comments in this comment section.
The problem that escape all the antisemites like you is those terms must be put in context.
As usual the intentional simplification of complex issues is an attempt to rewrite history to support a political agenda.
Did you collect all the articles of elite Arab intellectuals of the same period of time to understand their points of view?!?
What was the "project" of the Gran Mufti of Jerusalem when visited Hitler in 1941 just months before the Holocaust started?
or maybe, since they needed support from different entities, they used language and concepts, those entities would understand.
the jews are home
nuff said
@@thewkovacs316
"Palestine doesn't exist! Nobody ever called this place Palestine and these people Palestinian! There was no people there!"
* Zionist talk about colonising Palestine and taking it over from Palestinians*
"Well, that's because that's how everybody called this land and these people!"
That's a lot of cope right there.
Because they don't know what words mean.
It is not coloniazation
So this book basically tries to justify European colonialism...got it
nope, next time watch the video before making silly comments
I thought I sent a comment here already a couple of hours ago. I wonder where it went?
My point is this. If the Jews wanted to successfully establish the state of Israel they shouldn’t have started with ethnic cleansing of the Arabs that already lived in the area. That’s a recipe for disaster and would not result in a peaceful Middle East. As we have seen. And it seems this policy is still ongoing. Place Palestinians in reserves like the American Indians? Or completely expel them?
Oh, do you mean like the Arab Muslims who sought to religiously cleanse everywhere they expanded? Maybe like they've done to Christians and Jews throughout the Middle East to this very day? Why is your starting point 1948? Why not 640 AD? Or 1500 BC?
They didn't
resistance isnt progressive nor conservative.. its existential
Ask vietcong.
You mean the Vietnamese people?!
Vietcong was a communist ideology or a soldier on the Vietcong army
23:25 I think that’s what those people want though is eternal conflict. I think the people who believe this understand that
Nice work.
Congrats Mike, you are officially declared an anti-science reactionary. This guy is no specialist, not even a historian, a political scientist nor an anthropologist. He's a literary critic and a poet. What authority does he have to declare as ideology a concept that is central to those sub-disciplines that study specifically colonial histories, race relations and human rights in ethnically segragated nations? I can't wait to see what reviewers will say about his book in the specialized academic journals.
Why not invite a real specialist on the issue, Mike? Someone who'd be able to teach you and your followers what settler colonialism means and refers to. I don't know, people like Rashid Khalidi, Ilan Pappe, Noura Erakat, Somdeep Sen, Roxanne Dumbar-Ortiz, Tariq Dana, Brendan Ciarán Browne, Muhannad Ayyash or many others.
Look down in the comments and see how you've turned your "skeptical" audience into rabbid colonialism supporters. Great contribution to the advancement of peace, knowledge and justice, Mike!
You: "you are officially declared an anti-science reactionary."
By attacking the person and not the argument you already disqualify yourself from any dialog
you: "This guy is no specialist"
So what? People are entitled to opinions and offer arguments.
*What are your arguments, beside the fallacies?*
you: " I can't wait to see what reviewers will say about his book in the specialized academic journals."
Yeah, they , unlike you, may offer arguments. Duh!
you: "Why not invite a real specialist on the issue, Mike? Someone who'd be able to teach you and your followers what settler colonialism means "
What are blabbing about?!? You don't need a specialist to learn the meaning of words and words evolve and change and need context.
you: "Rashid Khalidi, Ilan Pappe, Noura Erakat, Somdeep Sen, Roxanne Dumbar-Ortiz, Tariq Dana, Brendan Ciarán Browne, Muhannad Ayyash"
All those people offer their own opinions like everybody else, they are not covering the spectrum of the diversity of opinions in the scholarly community.
You just show how biased are your opinions.
you: "Look down in the comments and see how you've turned your "skeptical" audience into rabbid colonialism supporters. Great contribution to the advancement of peace, knowledge and justice, "
Thank you for the sermon, father!
*Next time try harder to bring some arguments and not only baseless and biased opinions , fallacies and innuendos.*
The activists that you cite are not really academics, but well-known pro-Palestinian activists and almost all of them are supporters of an extreme version of violent antizionism that glorifies violence and supports the October 7 massacres. Most of them are Palestinian nationalists, most of them commercially write for Al Jazeera, none of them are serious academics.
And considering your reaction, you are doing the exact thing that Kirsch criticizes in the book: Supporting extremist zero-sum ideology that views every critic of any of their maximalist arguments as "colonialist supporters".
Please do not equate caring about Palestinians with being anti-jewish. It's inaccurate and dangerous and tedious. I'm not anti-american but i didn't support the iraqi war. I'm not against Russian people but I oppose Russia's attack on Ukraine. I'm not a fan of the Chinese government but I'm don't hate Chinese people.
Israel is a Jewish state, so being anti-Israel is by definition anti-semitic
@@Bthe312there so many Jews against Isreal
3 Intresting Facts:
1. God gave the land to Israel
2. Israel never lost a war
3. Israel has nukes
3 حقائق مهتمة:
1. أعطى الله الأرض لإسرائيل
2. لم تخسر إسرائيل أي حرب قط
3. تمتلك إسرائيل أسلحة نووية
Genesis 17:7-8: "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your offspring to come, to be God to you and to your offspring to come after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your offspring, and I will be their God.'"
تكوين 17: 7-8: "وأقيم عهدي عهدا أبديا بيني وبينك وبين نسلك الآتي، لأكون إلها لك ولنسلك الذي يأتي من بعدك، كل أرض كنعان التي أنت الآن فيها وأقمت غريبا، فأعطيك ولنسلك ملكا أبديا، وأكون لهم إلها».
Israel and Judea were just a couple of dozens of Canaanite societies and they all had myths about local gods promising them land. Interestingly, Judaism is uniquely non-native because the “exile priests” came from Babylon, but the people are native, as usual.
@@mckernan603 What part of forever is beyond your comprehension?
Genesis 17:7-8: "I will establish my covenant as an *everlasting* covenant between me and you and your offspring to come, to be God to you and to your offspring to come after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an *everlasting* possession to you and your offspring, and I will be their God.'"
palasta😂ne is like beliving in the night monster.
I really don't get the framing of protests against the massacre of tens of thousands of people in terms of considering that the appropriate question to ask is "what's up with all the antisemitism?".
What's up with all the massacring, though, no?
whats up with you redefing the response to the massacre of 10/7?
war is hell
if hanas didnt want was, they shoulda stayed home on 10/7
they can surrender and return the hostages and the war ends
if not say goodbye to all your pals in gaza
as an Australian, I agree with you both to a practical extent, but I can't help but be reminded of that Palestinian woman confronting an Israeli settler for living in her family's house, I mean, that's her home. might makes right I guess.. but where does one draw the line? last week, last month, a year, a generation, or two, a century, two? three, a millennia, ten? mucky stuff.. I can tell you what though as someone living in a country colonized two hundred year ago, might makes right is still the way it's enforced, and that comes at a serious cost to the social cohesion
it's not easy, I don't have any answers, hopefully Australian society can continue to become more egalitarian
You are confusing private property issues with a conflict between people/nations.
Do you think there are no stealing between Arabs? Hamas terrorists are stealing every day Gazan resources, including schools , hospitals etc
The issue between Arabs/Jews was first attempted to be resolved by UN resolution 181 with the two states solution (each state with a majority and a minority)
The Jews accepted and created Israel (20% is Arabs) , the Arabs refused and tried to destroy Israel but never tried to create an independent state for themselves.
The bottom line is clear the Arabs don't want to live in a state with a large Jewish minority or next to a state with a Jewish majority.
Nearly a million Jews were force to leave from the Arab countries after 1948. What you think happened to their private properties?
Even Israel is the one who vaccinate and provide aid to gazans. Not unrwa not hamas.
Max Rodinson was the first writer to use the settler colonialism as a characterization of Israel. Rodinson was himself Jewish. Upper echelon of the Jewish population of ancient Palestine left in Roman times. Remaining Hebrew peasantry plus other ethnic groups like Moabites Jebusites etc later adopted Christiniaty, and after 700 AD adopted Islam and Arabic language. So Palestinian Arabs, Moslem and Christian, are the indigenous population evicted after the settlement of European Jewry and later Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews from North Africa, Iraq Iran Yemen etc. There WAS settlement from abroad and displacement of the native population. No scope for any confusion here even if there is no ONE SINGLE Mother country! Australia was settled from the British Isles, then from Italu, Greece, Serbia. It's still a settler colonial state from the perspective of the Abotigines. The same reasoning has to apply in Israel-Palestine.
Maxime Rodinson was a fervent marxist and Islam scholar his opinions on Zionism / history are not more relevant than anybody else or even less because of his fervent anti-nationalistic ideology. For marxists any nationalism is an abomination, they favor empires over nations. That may explain his love for Islam.
But you already showed your rabid antisemitism when you used a typical antisemite trope of the good "Jew" accusing the "bad Jews" of something.
And your cartoonish story of the Jewish/Zionism/Israel is ridiculous and biased.
You even confuse immigration for colonialism...the Italians colonized Australia?!?!?
So your argument is : Italy which became nation in 1861 colonized Australia after was already colonized by other countries?
BTW your cartoonish history left out the Ottoman Empire and British Mandate. Ouch!
They regulated the immigration of the Jews on the land.
Those Jewish immigrants purchased the land legally, nobody was displaced. Ouch! You "forgot" that part.
Finally, which country speak or used to speak Hebrew beside Israel?
That's a little more hard to explain for the marxists and antisemites...
It’s astounding that in an hour-long conversation, the topic of Israel’s apartheid system never came up. The reality is that Israel is actively engaged in settler colonialism in the occupied territories. Before 1967, the vast majority of the population in the West Bank and Gaza were Arab Muslims and Christians, with a small number of mostly Arab Jews.
Prior to 1967, Israel had established itself as a Jewish state, but after the war that year, Jewish colonists-known as “settlers”-began the systematic occupation and apartheid of the indigenous Arab population in the West Bank. This process has been ongoing for decades, with settlers and the Israeli government ruthlessly displacing and marginalizing the Palestinian Arabs.
These issues aren’t just historical-they’re present, persistent, and deeply woven into the daily lives and struggles of those in the occupied territories. The colonial practices and apartheid policies continue, shaping the conflict and realities in the region today.
20% of Israelis are arabs 🤡
Are you seriously this ignorant? Can you count 22 arab states? Do you know anything about the history of the Jews? Jews have and had lived in Israel for thousands of years.
Jews were slaughtered, persecuted or expelled from Israel or foreign lands for centuries and scattered across the globe.
when 6 million of your people are slaughtered in a holocaust and millions more are expelled or killed in foreign lands, you can lecture me about your high morals. you simply prefer Jews from the past who had no weapons to defend themselves. Guess what, those days are long over.
Why don't you study the history of the Palestinians. Their leader met with Hitler to make an alliance to exterminate the Jews. they rejected multiple peace deals because they were certain that the arab countries would wipe Israel out. guess what, they made bad decisions, including bowing down to HAMAS. Ask yourself a very simple question, why doesn't Egypt open the southern border to their Palestinianian cousins?
Gaza wasn't occupied since 2005 so all your demented comments are just ...demented.
And the term "apartheid" only refer to racial segregation within the state, not in territories outside the state.
You need to stop watching Hamas/Iran propaganda.
because there is no apartheid
@@patharvard 20% of Israelis are arabs. learn some facts before running your mouth 🤡
Good talk. I’m a fan. But it seemed kind of weird to treat this topic like it’s ancient history when there are currently literal settlers kicking Palestinians off their land.
I was hoping to hear some insight into that situation. Weird that they didn’t even bring the topic up. I don’t know if that’s intentional or not. Seems kind of obscurantist.
It did come up when defining the term 'settler' in this particlar context, they just didn't go in to any depth. Maybe read the book if you want to know more.
Obscurantism is the new skepticism, my friend.
I appreciate 'that' the conversation is taking place, but I don't feel Adam is representing what he criticizes accurately. Adam operates from a perspective of capitalism (which well intentioned people can argue over but at minimum requires "private property"); it is the water he swims in and thus I don't know that he is aware of the implications. Living in communion with the land and people is both an "old" idea and a "progressive" idea. Workers owning/controlling/directly benefiting from the means of production is explicitly a "leftist" or "progressive" goal and is also how most people indigenous to North America lived prior to being concurred by European peoples. "The way things are is the way things have to be" is a conservative/reactionary perspective and is what informs his opinion that "we cannot roll time back". Of course we cannot go back in time, but we can treat all people with dignity and respect. Dehumanization is required for colonization. "The natives aren't using the land the right way" is always the justification for land seizure... but it's 'their' land. Amazon preventing their employees from unionizing is explicitly against US labor law. The board of directors and C-suit are using the company "the wrong way" according to US law. Is that justification for seizure of assets? Bezos, the board, and C-suit would surely be opposed to such an argument and we, as a society, value that perspective... so why do we not value the corollary in of the indigenous people?
At best the conversation misrepresents the opposition and at worst it is explicitly disingenuous. Michael, you have an obligation to interrogate skeptically the claims made by your guests. It does not have to be antagonistic, but it is worthwhile to say, "how do you know what you know? What is your evidence?" every once in a while.
The strong conquer the weak. Is that something new to you? The Inca conquered and colonized the Chimu. Ancient Japanese conquered and colonized the Ainu. Are they unique? Or is that the human condition?. Everyone who is human is guilty of being human. Move on, and stop looking backwards. Grievance peddling has no future.
@@jimpollard113 "might makes right" is a poor ethical standard.
@CHJoe83 mass genocide due lysenkoism is a worse ethical standard..
Never trust a leftist. Ever.
What these people are thinking...? They're not thinking - and that's the core problem!
Bring some sound argument and not baseless opinion if you have any
सो चूहे खाके बिल्ली हज को चली!
A shocking insight into Israel's Apartheid | Roadmap to Apartheid | Full Documentary ruclips.net/video/3psMGQE0iW4/видео.htmlsi=EYJ2xdx-MitF8Uy6
This is a powerful documentary
@@patharvard
The usual antisemite propaganda directly sourced from the ideology (ISIS/Iran/etc) that justify/honor/encourage the horror of Oct 7 / Holocaust denial / suicide bombing / terrorism etc
Gaza wasn't occupied or under Israel laws when Hamas attacked Israel and intentionally target unarmed civilians
The term Apartheid only apply to laws within the state, there is no Apartheid within Israel where Arabs are 20% of the population.
The whole argument is fallacy called false equivalence.
The occupation laws are security laws which any country would implement to control terrorist and violence against civilians.
But the racist/antisemite are easily spot when they openly show they have double standard one for the Jews and one for themselves.
Just a quick look at what happened in Gaza when Hamas took power and killed hundred of Palestinians for "security" reasons.
Distinguish Zionism from Zionists.
One is a process and an idea.
The other are people.
Hating Zionism isn't hating Zionists.
you are aloud to hate people. that is ok. if zionism means that you are losing your land, you are aloud to hate zionists
all this verbal acrobatic to distract from the problem your heart is full of hate
@@tatonemio6388
That's an ad hominem dodge.
Try to prove that Zionism isn't an idea.
Try to prove that Zionists are not people.
Try to prove hating Zionism is hating Zionists.
I'm always willing to have my mind changed.
@@SkepticalSpectrum
Ad hominem is attacking a character rather than an argument.
You have presented zero arguments but only a silly list of equivalences (A = B)
The sentence "Hating Zionism isn't hating Zionists." is typical antisemite/racist trope from racist people that try to deny their hatred for Jews/others.
And I don't have to prove anything, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
You would have to define Zionism first. If your argument is that Zionism is settler colonialism and therefore you reject it, most Israelis would disagree with your classification that Zionism ultimately and always is settler colonialism.
You can argue that the idea of Zionism that settler extremists have been pushing in the occupied territories is to be rejected, that would be a different argument and one that most people would be able to get behind. But if your argument is that every form of Zionism meaning the foundational ideology of the state of Israel necessarily is to be rejected, you are saying that Israel has to be destroyed and that will not fly for most Israelis, as you would justify the destruction of their homeland or even their expulsion or genocide. In fact, that anti-Zionist argument would be the exact thing that opponents of settler colonialism think Israel does.
Palestinian people are the same people who have been living there for 4000 years at least. Jews are descendants from people from Palestine and but moved around the Persian, Greek and Roman empires. They should be able to move to Palestine, but they should not be able to set up a state there, especially not one of demographic majority through ethnic cleansing.
You obviously have no idea what are talking about. There is not such think as "Palestinian people are the same people who have been living there for 4000 years "
The "Palestinians" as people is a concept maybe 100 year old or less.
The Jewish people is the only original surviving people of the region or you think the Arab language was born in Palestine?
How come Judea/Samaria/Jerusalem are from Hebrew language?!?!
@tatonemio6388 sorry mate, but you're wrong. It has been called Palestine since 500BC. Israel and Judah only existed for a few hundred years prior to that Judiasm was developed after that.
The people of Paelstine are a mix of all that history ... and their genetics demonstrate this.
The language thing is stupid. Hebrew was a dead language at the time of Jesus!! They were speaking Aramiac. Arabic is just another semitic language that locals took up through medieval times as Islam became the culmination of west Asian monotheism.
@@matthewvicendese1896 Sorry, mate, but you're wrong. Just because you rename yourself after taking a soil doesn't make you indigenous. 😂
@@matthewvicendese1896Do you also think white West Virginians are "native"?
@@matthewvicendese1896
First you say "Palestinian people " and after I corrected you, you switched to "Palestine" (as the name of the region).
It's the moving the goalposts fallacy, troll harder.
you: " their genetics demonstrate this"
Ouch! People are not determined by genetics...unless you a racist.
"People" is determined by a mixture of culture/history/language/religion/values
So besides the Jewish people what other original people (as defined above) still exist?
Definitely Arab people are not.
you: "Hebrew was a dead language at the time of Jesus"
Irrelevant, the fact the names are derived from Hebrew and not Arabic tell who are the "native" before the Islamic Empire colonized the region.
And Hebrew was still used for centuries as the main language of the Torah for religious purposes.
any more irrelevant, biased and baseless opinions or fallacies you would like to share?