I wrote in this post that Iām uncomfortaple to argue āgenetical[ly] or genealogical[ly]ā why people ābelongā in some place or another. I think thatās ethno-nationalist reasoning and a āweapon of the enemyā reasoning applies. Even if itās in favour of Palestinians.
But apparently, thatās āsettler-colonialist apologismā for dessalines. Ethno-nationalism is ok if itās targeting āthe rightā people, I guess. /s
I think the reasoning of the comment removal is bollocks. Just because I donāt want to argue why someone ābelongsā someplace because of their genes, Iām not all of a sudden in favour of settler-colonialism.
If an Indigenous Australian said to me āYour ancestors were Irish and Italian, you donāt belong hereā I wouldnāt fault them at all for that. Least of all because they have zero power to enforce that, and would pawbably be using it as a rhetorical device.
How is this argument different from ethnopluralism?
Because, at the end of the day, Indigenous Australians are the ones who should get to decide. Their land was invaded, and they were violently suppressed. This is all a hypothetical though, because the Indigenous Australians Iāve met just want their rights back, they donāt want to kick out every white person thatās come here.
I donāt really adhere to the logic that anargument loses itās characteristics if youāre unable to enforce it.
If Iām exclaiming ādeath to all jewsā, itās still antisemitic if Iām unable to hurt a single person.
I really donāt want to downplay the suffering that indigenous peoples are still enduring due to colonization. But the āyour ancestors are from xyz, so you donāt belong in abcā is the core statement of ethnopluralism. It doesnāt get better if youāre being an ethnonationalist/ethnopluralist in favour of the ārightā peoples.
I dunno, I donāt believe reverse racism is real, but you do you.
I donāt know what else to tell you. āPeople donāt belong in places were their ancestors arenāt fromā is the literal opinion of current real-world racists.
ĀÆ\_(ć)_/ĀÆ