Speaking as a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation, I think you need to take a course in world history. Europeans weren't intrinsically evil because they tried to expand their boundaries, any more than the Comanche were intrinsically evil when they chased the Apache out of territory they had previously occupied. (What Indians did to other Ind…
Speaking as a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation, I think you need to take a course in world history. Europeans weren't intrinsically evil because they tried to expand their boundaries, any more than the Comanche were intrinsically evil when they chased the Apache out of territory they had previously occupied. (What Indians did to other Indians isn't always a pretty picture, despite what Disney wants you to believe.) The peoples of the world, going back to the Neanderthals, moved, occupied, and expanded their worlds. At what point in human history do you want to freeze the location of every tribe and race? What boundaries would you like to reestablish? Given that Jews have occupied the area since well before the bronze age, you're going to have to go back a ways.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. When I try to explain the Jews and Israel to gentiles, I often invoke Native American tribes. It’s so interesting you refer to your tribes as “Nations.” Did you know Israel uses “nationality” — as distinct from citizenship — in exactly the same way?
Native Americans are a natural ally for Jews, and I don’t understand why more don’t see the similarities in our fights for indigenous rights. I’d love to hear your thoughts on following analogy I use with the US wokesters:
China defeats the U.S. in war. They decide to divide the land into 12 new self-governing states. Due to their indigeneity and history of enduring persecution and genocide wherever they are a minority, China gives Vermont to the Native Americans.
Your family has lived in Vermont for generations. You basically have three options: 1.) Stay in Vermont and agree to live under NA sovereignty. 2.) Move to another state and let the NAs ‘do their thing.’ Or 3.) Declare war on the NA immigrants. Which would you choose?
Jane — The resemblance to Comanche, Apache, and other tribes’ atrocities immediately occurred to me, though apparently to no one else, when I learned what Hamas was doing to helpless Israeli captives. Those older atrocities had their apologists and explainers, too.
You make a good point about the implicit fact that Indians only lost to Europeans because they had inferior weapons and numbers. And as an Indian yourself, you rightly laugh at putting “noble savages” on moral pedestals. That said, you’re the one who needs the world history course. There were only a few thousand Jews in a sea of Palestinian Arabs in WWI. Then the Rothchilds caught the Zionist bug, leaned on England to produce the Balfour Declaration, and started shipping Jews to Palestine in the first wave of Zionism’s settler colonialism, which proceeds apace to this day as Jews steal more and more Arab land on the West Bank. There is no question that the Arabs, understandably hating the Jews for having better weapons and richer, more powerful friends, would drink the Jews’ blood if given the chance. Just as the Comanches and Zulus would quaffed the blood of their own equally ruthless conquerors. But the issue before the world today is the same issue before it with South African apartheid, and Israel is losing the battle for the world’s hearts and minds just as the Boers did. This will increasingly be true in America as well as the overwhelmingly Trump and Bibi loving Boomers die off ever faster and are replaced at the polls by all those pesky progressives under 50. Watch the superb Israeli documentary The Gatekeepers (2012 or so) in which six retired former heads of Shin Bet unanimously agree that either Israel works out a two-state solution or it is doomed. You can take it on faith that these guys had all heard all the Jewish arguments about how the lack of two states was all the fault of the Palestinians. They clearly weren’t buying.
Speaking as a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation, I think you need to take a course in world history. Europeans weren't intrinsically evil because they tried to expand their boundaries, any more than the Comanche were intrinsically evil when they chased the Apache out of territory they had previously occupied. (What Indians did to other Indians isn't always a pretty picture, despite what Disney wants you to believe.) The peoples of the world, going back to the Neanderthals, moved, occupied, and expanded their worlds. At what point in human history do you want to freeze the location of every tribe and race? What boundaries would you like to reestablish? Given that Jews have occupied the area since well before the bronze age, you're going to have to go back a ways.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. When I try to explain the Jews and Israel to gentiles, I often invoke Native American tribes. It’s so interesting you refer to your tribes as “Nations.” Did you know Israel uses “nationality” — as distinct from citizenship — in exactly the same way?
Native Americans are a natural ally for Jews, and I don’t understand why more don’t see the similarities in our fights for indigenous rights. I’d love to hear your thoughts on following analogy I use with the US wokesters:
China defeats the U.S. in war. They decide to divide the land into 12 new self-governing states. Due to their indigeneity and history of enduring persecution and genocide wherever they are a minority, China gives Vermont to the Native Americans.
Your family has lived in Vermont for generations. You basically have three options: 1.) Stay in Vermont and agree to live under NA sovereignty. 2.) Move to another state and let the NAs ‘do their thing.’ Or 3.) Declare war on the NA immigrants. Which would you choose?
Thank you!
Jane — The resemblance to Comanche, Apache, and other tribes’ atrocities immediately occurred to me, though apparently to no one else, when I learned what Hamas was doing to helpless Israeli captives. Those older atrocities had their apologists and explainers, too.
You make a good point about the implicit fact that Indians only lost to Europeans because they had inferior weapons and numbers. And as an Indian yourself, you rightly laugh at putting “noble savages” on moral pedestals. That said, you’re the one who needs the world history course. There were only a few thousand Jews in a sea of Palestinian Arabs in WWI. Then the Rothchilds caught the Zionist bug, leaned on England to produce the Balfour Declaration, and started shipping Jews to Palestine in the first wave of Zionism’s settler colonialism, which proceeds apace to this day as Jews steal more and more Arab land on the West Bank. There is no question that the Arabs, understandably hating the Jews for having better weapons and richer, more powerful friends, would drink the Jews’ blood if given the chance. Just as the Comanches and Zulus would quaffed the blood of their own equally ruthless conquerors. But the issue before the world today is the same issue before it with South African apartheid, and Israel is losing the battle for the world’s hearts and minds just as the Boers did. This will increasingly be true in America as well as the overwhelmingly Trump and Bibi loving Boomers die off ever faster and are replaced at the polls by all those pesky progressives under 50. Watch the superb Israeli documentary The Gatekeepers (2012 or so) in which six retired former heads of Shin Bet unanimously agree that either Israel works out a two-state solution or it is doomed. You can take it on faith that these guys had all heard all the Jewish arguments about how the lack of two states was all the fault of the Palestinians. They clearly weren’t buying.
So, for you, Jewish history goes back only to the early 1900's?
That's what I thought? Archeology and written history only start with Balfour?
This gibbering ignoramus shows up here from time to time to embarrass himself. Best to just ignore. He’s desperate for attention.
Thanks, didn't know he was a frequent flier.