Around here (Portland, OR) it's about young white people saying "we are living on stolen land". I don't think even they support all of us (including themselves) going back to Europe though. They seem to support all of the property rights going to whatever tribe was the most recent one in the area before the settlers arrived, and all of us paying rent to the tribe.

The problem is, I never stole anyone's land, have you? I also don't own any property and I already pay rent. Oh, I never murdered anyone either.

I also disagree that anyone should own property or anything else because their ancestors did. I believe all property rights should die with the owner, and property should not be transferable to one's offspring.

I would be surprised if that's the stance that many indigenous people take, but the situation may be different there. Here in BC, just about every government or school event will start with a land acknowledgement, which has language like "unceded traditional territory", and sometimes "stolen" is part of that - and not just from young people. I'm used to doing that at many meetings I attend. But there's zero conversation about a lot of property changing hands. Like in Oregon, there is tons of undeveloped land here, and that's where a lot of the indigenous land ownership is. But in the cities, there are extremely valuable tracts of undeveloped land that has gone to indigenous people and is now being developed and bringing them large profits. I hear of pretty much no one worried about losing their homes to land claims here.

No, but most of us (settlers) have benefitted from those who did.

I don't know how workable that is, but it's an interesting concept.

Sure, some of the settlers and their offspring did, especially the beneficiaries of the Homestead Act. I'm not descended from anyone who was a settler. My ancestors were refugees who arrived here from Europe and went straight to the cities of the midwest, and I didn't inherit anything from them anyway.

well those young white people must agree with Putin about Ukraine being Russia soil....
Not accepting reality of past wars lost ...

OR not accepting the concept of rehabilitation, condemning people just because one of their ancestor act badly in a far away past....

I think they're mostly just self-hating (or parent hating) upper-middle class young people who feel bad about the advantages they had growing up, and want to seem really radical.

isnt this called woke ?
as dumb as the other extreme side ?
men where the f is the center ffs...

No. It's called anti-Zionism or being anti-Israel. It's possible to hold those positions without being an anti-Semite.

And didn't benefit in any way from the country that was created from stolen lands? The benefits may not have been as direct, but I'd suggest they were still there.

That's not to say that you or I should feel personally guilty or responsible for what was done to Indigenous peoples over the previous decades and centuries. But I think it's important to the context when Indigenous people are seeking more sovereignty and a better ability to provide for themselves. Of course I'm speaking from what I know of the Canadian experience, not the American one. I know that here, unfair treatment of Indigenous people isn't something from the distant past, and the legacy of that is something we're still trying to reconcile. I suspect it's not that different to the south of us.

Sure. Indigenous people of my age have also had benefits from living in the US. And many of them have been given dividends from the casinos being operated on tribal lands.

White liberals who come from wealthy families often like to go on about how many advantages they have had. Well, it's true that they had advantages, but it's mostly because of their wealth, not because of their ethnicity. Not many poor white people would argue that they have lots of advantages.

It's certainly possible, but it's extremely rare.

However I think washoe actually did understand the difference, he was trying to say that some people are called anti-Semitic when they are really just anti-Israel.

IMO most of the second are also the first though.

You're right about washoe's post. Should wait till I've had my morning coffee to comment.

I'm not at all convinced of the rest of your post but maybe this is an issue of different definitions of a term. Much of the American left is critical of Israel and I think anti-Zionism as a term has ballooned to encompass these people as well, and not just strictly people who think Israel is an illegitimate country. I don't think many on the left could actually be considered anti-Semites, although pro-Israel groups like to paint anyone critical of the government as an anti-Semite. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know personally in my generation and that of my parents is on the left and exactly zero of them are anti-Semites despite being against Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Of course there are Jewish groups who hold the same opinion

I don't know, do those same people criticize the Arab countries surrounding Israel for attacking them again and again?

The Palestinians originally had the entire East Bank, as part of Jordan. The reason they lost control of it was that Jordan attacked Israel.

After that, Israel was under constant terrorist attack from Palestinians.

The Israeli government is certainly far from blameless and has done some very bad things. But if someone loves to criticize Israel, but they don't often criticize the terrible actions of the surrounding countries (and of the Palestinians themselves) , they probably are anti Jewish.

This is a massive reach. The reason why countries like Israel and the US get more negative attention than worse actors is because of the hypocrisy of claiming to be democracies and decrying human rights abuses while simultaneously engaging in some very non-democratic and anti-humanitarian behavior. Couple this with the fact that the US gives so much funding to Israel, it's no wonder they get more of a spotlight than most Arab countries. Saudi Arabia gets plenty of heat from the left incidentally, similarly because of the US relationship.

but not without getting called an anti semite.
that is true what you say there and yet they all dont call it that.

would these rabbies get called anti semites and cancelled on twitter
and instagram? of course they would. adidas would terminate their deals if they had any and so on...


what do you say, yes or no?

I think a number of leftist Jews do hold that position but it's a pretty dangerous one for a gentile.

I think there is a valid reason to conflate 'anti semetic with anti-israel' generally. I think the default is that it should be viewed that way and the onus would be put on the 'other' to distinguish why any such claim was not.

I am curious what arguments one would put forth that could split that hair?


(or as I type this i wonder if that refers to 'actions of the nation of Israel' and not 'against the jewish people having their own Country' as the former is fine, imo)

Lol at the bit in brackets.

Of course that is why numerous people have some negative opinions about Israel, for its actions as a State.

The clue is in the name.

Well they tried.

It's the West Bank, it belonged to Jordan, not 'the Palestinians', and the whole purpose of the Israelis starting the 1967 war was to annexe it. Israel's 1966 raid into Jordan was intended to create a mutual defence pact between Jordan and Egypt, so that Israel's long-planned attack on Egypt in 1967 would trigger a Jordanian response (it was about six artillery shells), giving a supposed pretext for Israel's seizure of the territory they coveted. Not that the occupation since 1967 has done Israel a whole lot of good, really. It's not recognised as legal, it sucked in a lot of slightly mad religious-right American settlers, who even the IDF don't like, and it's distorted Israeli politics and made the country look bad. There's an Israeli academic book on the war entitled 'The Pitfalls of Decisive Victory'.

My only love sprung from my only hate!

How exactly would they "fail to include Jewish people in a casting call"? The article is behind a paywall.

Do casting calls normally include the religions or ethnicities of the actors they are looking for? What did this casting call say they were looking for?

By....failing to include Jewish people in a casting call.

You just gotta be quick. Luckily the relevant quote was in the first few paragraphs.

Sometimes, yes.

"The company advertised for 'non-binary artists, and/or those of global majority, black or Asian heritage' to join the cast."

LOL, I love that two and a half hours after replying to me, washoe says:

Half an hour later, he gets his reply.

Over 24 hours later, washoe's posted in this thread four times, but I've got crickets.