So all you need to do to get away with theft is wait and move it around a bunch after the initial theft? And the rightful owner loses their right to it?
No, of course not, don’t change the context of the situation to make a point. That’s really immature.
I haven’t stolen anything is my point. My ancestors moved to USA in the early 1900s, long after the colonization was complete. Am I supposed to give up my property because someone who died 400 years ago was oppressed? I had nothing to do with that, I was just born here.
Are you willing to give up YOUR home if asked? I suspect not, but you didn’t come to be there without violence either, right?
Like I feel like your perspective sounds nice and empathetic for about three seconds, then you realize you’re advocating another ethnic cleansing in response to ethnic cleansing. Or not, I guess it’s possible to think ethnic cleansing is good.
Returning land to the people it was stolen from isn’t ethnic cleansing, and it’s a typical settler response to accuse their victims of hypothetically doing something the colonizers are already guilty of.
So what you’re saying is that it’s okay to take back the food stolen by a homeless man desperate to feed his kids, right? And if they’ve already eaten, it’s okay to take a scalpel to their stomach to retrieve it.
So all you need to do to get away with theft is wait and move it around a bunch after the initial theft? And the rightful owner loses their right to it?
No, of course not, don’t change the context of the situation to make a point. That’s really immature.
I haven’t stolen anything is my point. My ancestors moved to USA in the early 1900s, long after the colonization was complete. Am I supposed to give up my property because someone who died 400 years ago was oppressed? I had nothing to do with that, I was just born here.
Are you willing to give up YOUR home if asked? I suspect not, but you didn’t come to be there without violence either, right?
Like I feel like your perspective sounds nice and empathetic for about three seconds, then you realize you’re advocating another ethnic cleansing in response to ethnic cleansing. Or not, I guess it’s possible to think ethnic cleansing is good.
Returning land to the people it was stolen from isn’t ethnic cleansing, and it’s a typical settler response to accuse their victims of hypothetically doing something the colonizers are already guilty of.
So what you’re saying is that it’s okay to take back the food stolen by a homeless man desperate to feed his kids, right? And if they’ve already eaten, it’s okay to take a scalpel to their stomach to retrieve it.
Hypocrisy isn’t excusable.
Land stolen from indigenous people isn’t done in desperation for starvatian, it’s theft.