Comments by "yessum15" (@yessum15) on "Corey Gil-Shuster"
channel.
-
73
-
45
-
30
-
21
-
8
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@blahblahboii "But thousands of ABS were recorded migrating"
Not sure how this is relevant. Any indigenous group in a larger empire experiences migration.
There are indigenous Egyptians despite the fact that there was a ton of traffic in & out of the Nile Valley.
How odd would it be for a group of New Yorkers to randomly annex a section of Cairo on the claim that their ancient ancestors likely originated in this region thousands of years ago. And then use the argument that there was traffic during the Ancient Egyptian empire to deny the indigenousness of Egyptians who had been living in the region for as long as we have records?
You are essentially doing the same thing.
The indigenous PLSN and JSH people of the region are well known and well documented as having lived there for generations. They are distinct from the recent set of Europeans who showed up in the 20th and 21st Century on a mission to take the land.
That first group are the indigenous people and that second group is not. It's not complicated.
"Half are Egy the other half are SD"
It's odd that you would use a quote to prove a fact that even you do not believe in. We obviously both know that this is rhetorical flourish in a speech aimed at getting financial support from EGY and SD.
We also both know that factually speaking not every PLSN is from either of these places. As there are many closer neighboring countries in the region. The speaker himself contradicts this point moments later by pointing out that only 30 families can trace any ancestry to EGY.
Again, because this speech is not a geographic survey but rather a rhetorical appeal to a vague pan-ABism.
However, given that both EGY & SD have existed for thousands of years the notion of indigenous PLSN people having ancestry from either place isn't really surprising.
Again, it does nothing to undermine their indigenousness.
You might want to avoid using MEMRI as a source since it is not credible.
"But the League of Nations recognized JSH people as the indigenous"
It didn't. Did you actually read the mandate? The mandate refers to the future goal of establishing a state for JSH people here. It doesn't claim that they're indigenous.
In fact, quite the opposite. It notes specifically that there are a people already living here who are not JSH.
In other words, the mandate notes that the land is already inhabited by an indigenous people, but intends on establishing a JSH state there anyway, given that the recent JSH migrants have a historical connection (which of course is not the same as being indigenous).
This makes sense of course since the mandate intended on creating a state available to all JSH people and it would be very silly indeed for the mandate to claim that people all over Europe who have never seen the new land, have no relatives or family in the land and haven't even moved there yet are somehow "indigenous".
"This is a pro gen statement"
Not really. If we can stop a gen in progress I'm all for it. If we can restore a family to the land it was removed from I'm all for it.
If we can offer compensation for people who had a gen done against them I also like that.
But when we talk about ancient migrations that occurred thousands of years ago, none of that is possible or desirable. Namely because none of these people or their families are even around any more and there is no record to even determine what happened to who.
The reason contemporary JSH people don't have a connection to the ancient people of ISRL is because they're a different people now. They have lived in Europe as indigenous people for a thousand years. Their families are already intertwined with European families. There is no way to tell how any of them got there. Who moved voluntarily and who didn't.
It would be like trying to determine which Swedish people migrated out of North Africa willingly and which were made to leave due to ancient wars.
Do you intend on establishing a Swedish state in Sudan?
So you see. This is not pro gen. This is simply stating that there of course must be some reasonable cut off point beyond which we do not attempt to litigate.
A good cut off point is to say that once it has been so long that there is no still alive who is even distantly related to the people who experienced the hardship, we move on.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HebraicandocomYohay The people of historic PLSTN have lived there continuously for well over a thousand years and are heavily documented as being the indigenous people of this region.
While the large majority of these people were MSM, all 3 of the major religions were represented among these people.
They had an extensive record of commerce, business, social institutions, as well as basic local governance. However at any one time or another they were also under the ultimate control of one large empire or another (eg: Ottoman, UK, etc.).
Proper ethical decolonization would typically involve conferring onto these indigenous people self-determination by rendering to them control of their land. Whether you'd like to call it PLSTN or any other name.
However, instead what happened is that a group of Europeans came to this land they had never seen before and claimed it as their own. They called it ISRL. They claimed that because they happen to be the same religion as a few of the indigenous people, they must somehow have an ownership claim to the land. Despite being unrelated to these people, having never met them and having never seen the land.
So, if you're asking me who the land belongs to, it rightly belongs to the indigenous people who have lived their for a thousand years, regardless of what religion they are.
But the recent transplants who arrived with an army for the purpose of take over have no claim and should probably leave.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bluemelon7818 Unfortunately, this is not true according to every authority on international law on the planet (UN, ICJ, WB, EU, etc.).
GZ is currently under ISRL occupation. It is not an independent state. This means that there is no law in GZ that can exist without ISRL approval.
The local GZ authorities work for ISRL. They are tasked with the legwork of administering the day to day running of the occupied territory because it is expensive for ISRL to do it themselves.
This is in fact the standard relationship between any empire and its occupied territory. In the absence of full scale settlement, a local authority is tasked with day to day administration, while remaining ultimately answerable to the controlling power.
This is why (beyond imports & exports) an entire host of commercial, industrial, and military projects are forbidden in GZ by ISRL. Every inhabitant in GZ is required to be registered with ISRL along with a whole host of information related to their lives. Inhabitants of GZ are subject to ISRL law and both the military and police of ISRL can enter and operate in GZ subject exclusively to ISRL approval irrespective of the local authority's protestations.
To be clear: the local government of GZ has no standing in ISRL to claim any authority over any function in GZ except with the unilateral approval of ISRL. ISRL has also reserved for itself the right to rescind any approval unilaterally.
So yes, the GZ laws you are complaining about are actually ISRL laws. They exist only because ISRL wants them to exist as they help ISRL to reduce day to day costs of maintaining the occupation. They rely on ISRL for their enforcement, as the local authorities cannot exercise any power that is not approved by ISRL, and they can be rescinded at any moment through a unilateral ISRL decree.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1