I wrote in this post that I’m uncomfortaple to argue “genetical[ly] or genealogical[ly]” why people “belong” in some place or another. I think that’s ethno-nationalist reasoning and a “weapon of the enemy” reasoning applies. Even if it’s in favour of Palestinians.

But apparently, that’s “settler-colonialist apologism” for dessalines. Ethno-nationalism is ok if it’s targeting “the right” people, I guess. /s

I think the reasoning of the comment removal is bollocks. Just because I don’t want to argue why someone “belongs” someplace because of their genes, I’m not all of a sudden in favour of settler-colonialism.

  • Norah (pup/it/she)@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    2·
    4 days ago

    Least of all because they have zero power to enforce that, and would pawbably be using it as a rhetorical device.

    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 I’ve met just want their rights back, they don’t want to kick out every white person that’s come here.

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
      2·
      4 days ago

      I don’t really adhere to the logic that anargument loses it’s characteristics if you’re unable to enforce it.

      If I’m exclaiming “death to all jews”, it’s still antisemitic if I’m unable to hurt a single person.

      I really don’t want to downplay the suffering that indigenous peoples are still enduring due to colonization. But the “your ancestors are from xyz, so you don’t belong in abc” is the core statement of ethnopluralism. It doesn’t get better if you’re being an ethnonationalist/ethnopluralist in favour of the “right” peoples.