The real apartheid state.

[Goodfella]

I honestly don't get how you can think putting 'Afro' in front of 'Nationalism' gets you what you think it does.

Black nationalism in Liberia. I'm sure you can figure it out.

 

[classical_hero]

If you gain your land by evicting the currents occupants, of course you should expect security issues.

There has been violence against Jews well before the state of Israel was formed. [wiki]1929 Palestine riots[/wiki]. How dare those evil Jews try to live in their ancestral home!
Don't forget that the Mufti of Jerusalem met up with Adolf Hitler during WW2, with great admiration of what he was doing to the Jews.

 

[Tee Kay]

classical hero, do you drive a Ford?

 

[JollyRoger]

There has been violence against Jews well before the state of Israel was formed. [wiki]1929 Palestine riots[/wiki]. How dare those evil Jews try to live in their ancestral home!
Don't forget that the Mufti of Jerusalem met up with Adolf Hitler during WW2, with great admiration of what he was doing to the Jews.

If you gain your land by evicting the currents occupants, of course you should expect security issues.

 

[Tee Kay]

If you gain your land by evicting the currents occupants, of course you should expect security issues.

ANCESTRAL HOME IS BEST HOME [/caps]

 

[Masada]

Black nationalism in Liberia. I'm sure you can figure it out.

Except the article is not talking about black nationalism, at all. It's talking about Liberian nationalism which just happens to have a racial component i.e. black and Liberian, not black and from Ghana. For comparison, it'd be like calling Swedish nationalism, White Nationalism, because the Swedes tend to have quite a fixed idea of what Swedes ought to be i.e. white and Swedish, not white and Danish.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Liberia law is indeed stupid me think. That being said, very few people are vocal against it because:
1. Liberia is already a hole with until recently problems beyond any thing one can think about from civil war , teenage soldiers, war crimes added to what is more usual in many third world countries like poverty; illiteracy, high child death rates, etc
2. the "citizen" problem is problematic in theory and not really in the real life because very few if any "non negros" (to quote the law article) live in Liberia and even fewer really want to have citizen ship, so the law does harm millions in theory and zero in real life. If Singapore voted a law excluding Samii or Inuit from getting Singaporean citizenship, it would be a stupid law, but quite frankly few people would give a care about it because it won't in real life hurt any body. Now same law voted in Finland or Canada will indeed be discriminatory and am sure many people will be vocal against it. If there were a sizable "non negro" population in Liberia truly discriminated because of the law, than I am sure people will be vocal about it.

 

[Ajidica]

Don't forget that the Mufti of Jerusalem met up with Adolf Hitler during WW2, with great admiration of what he was doing to the Jews.

Yeah, how about no. While the Mufti did work with Nazi Germany, activities in the Balkans come to mind, there isn't any credible evidence that he supported Death Camps or mass extermination of an entire race. The Mufti's limited cooperation with Nazi Germany was to the extent it was an anti-British, anti-colonial that (in the Mufti's rather questionable opinion) would give the Arabs a state the British had failed to do.

 

[Formaldehyde]

There has been violence against Jews well before the state of Israel was formed. 1929 Palestine riots. How dare those evil Jews try to live in their ancestral home!
Don't forget that the Mufti of Jerusalem met up with Adolf Hitler during WW2, with great admiration of what he was doing to the Jews.

Starting in 1933, German Jews also cooperated with Hitler to ethnically cleanse themselves to Palestine.

Henry Ford was a huge fan of Adolf Hitler and a virulent anti-Semite, just like many Christians were back then.

So what's your point?

 

[Evie]

"My long gone ancestors lived in these lands two thousand here ago, now I have the right to return here in sufficient number to make this my land" is pretty much insane troll logic.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

How dare those evil Jews try to live in their ancestral home!

This statement means precisely nothing. "Ancestral home" is not a claim to anything except history.

Although I am thoroughly enjoying this complete reversal of position on your part from the Mandela thread, now that we're dealing with White, Western people.

 

[Hygro]

@Oda, admittedly we whose ancestors traveled oceans on their own free accord aren't really qualified to say But I feel you.

 

[peter grimes]

By this logic I'll throw you all a party at my place in the Great Rift Valley just as soon as I get those usurping Kenyans off my land!

 

[Hygro]

This shared-ancestor-lion has my pride space! To arms teeth!

 

[Goodfella]

Except the article is not talking about black nationalism, at all. It's talking about Liberian nationalism which just happens to have a racial component i.e. black and Liberian, not black and from Ghana. For comparison, it'd be like calling Swedish nationalism, White Nationalism, because the Swedes tend to have quite a fixed idea of what Swedes ought to be i.e. white and Swedish, not white and Danish.

I was using the term to describe groups that advocate for a black state nation state, which is essentially what Ghana has and was what the article seemed to be doing. I don't think the term has to necessarily mean what you say it does, if not, I apologize for the misuse.

 

[Evie]

@Oda, admittedly we whose ancestors traveled oceans on their own free accord aren't really qualified to say But I feel you.

Well, yes, not all situations are equal, and there are certainly situations that justify reparation. There are even situations where a right to return to a homeland may be justified. People who themselves were removed; people who had to live as refugees because of the removal, certainly have a greater right. First, second generation? Perhaps. Fourth, fifth? Less so, but maybe, in some situations, you'd still have a case. Tenth, fifteenth generation? Far less so, and it would take a lot more than simple "We used to live there" - you'd need to have something more. Slavery may qualify.

Two thousand years later? Yeah, you hit the statute of limitations a little while ago on claim to that land being "Yours". And the people who have been living in the land since you left have a pretty huge claim to the land being theirs, if they've been there for 1000+ years.

 

[useless]

This statement means precisely nothing. "Ancestral home" is not a claim to anything except history.

Although I am thoroughly enjoying this complete reversal of position on your part from the Mandela thread, now that we're dealing with White, Western people.

If we're going to go by this logic, the native people of Australia, by C_H's logic, should be able to evict him out of his land/house and force him to live elsewhere. Ancestral home and all that!

 

[Borachio]

This statement means precisely nothing. "Ancestral home" is not a claim to anything except history.

Yes, I suppose it is nonsense.

But it's a common enough notion. And people do, mistaken though they might be, feel some ties to certain pieces of land.

And, after all, you are what you eat and drink; so in a kind of literal sense people are the product of the land they live on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroir

 

[Tahuti]

"My long gone ancestors lived in these lands two thousand here ago, now I have the right to return here in sufficient number to make this my land" is pretty much insane troll logic.

The problem was that it was another troll logic, that of "you shall not live here because my forefathers lived there and yours didn't" that led to the establishment of Israel.

Warning: Godwins ahead! I've put them in a spoiler alert because I'm quite ashamed I have to involve such in this discussion.

Spoiler :

The USA and the UK proper refused to take in Jews in the interwar years, while Sweden and Japan(!) only did so during the war. By the end of WWII, many survivors of the Holocaust went to Israel, so by then, Jews could form a majority of a country if Palestine were to be divided.

Before the Nazis were in power, Israel was already the most obvious location for the Jewish state, history aside, since territorialism (establishing Jewish states in Jewish majority areas in nation-states) would put the world's Jewry in conflict with the nations that were on top of such areas, and demanding equal rights in countries with official anti-semitic policies like Russia seemed politically impossible. After WWI, the Yishuv was firmly in place in Palestine, so the only other solution would be immigration to countries that granted equal rights to Jews, such as the USA, and these had generally highly restrictive immigration policies.

It is quite telling how Israel has a much broader definition of Jewishness than Judaism itself has. Israel is not only a state of pracitising Jews, but for victims of Anti-Semitism - whether are considered Jews by Judaism or not. To put it in the words of Jean-Paul Sartre: "It is the anti-semite who makes the Jew".

EDIT: The discussion of whether the aims of Zionism are justified or not is largely irrelevant today, because the main goal of Zionism has been achieved. I wouldn't have supported it if Israel didn't exist yet, but neither would I be really opposed. Saying you are an Anti-Zionist today is like saying you think it isn't a good idea to found the nation of Canada: It is already there, so what is there to oppose?

If you gain your land by evicting the currents occupants, of course you should expect security issues.

To be fair, the evictions of Arabs that happenned before the establishment of Israel were done by the British, on behalf of no one but themselves.

 

[Formaldehyde]

To be fair, the evictions of Arabs that happenned before the establishment of Israel were done by the British, on behalf of no one but themselves.

What is so "fair" about even mentioning that instead of the mass exodus which occurred immediately before and after the state of Israel was founded?

During the 1948 War, around 720,000 Palestian Arabs out of the 900,000 who lived in the territories that have become the State of Israel fled or were expelled from their home. The causes of this exodus are controversed and debated by historians. In his own words, Ilan Pappé "want to make the case for the paradigm of ethnic cleansing and use it to replace the paradigm of war as the basis for the scholarly research of, and public debate about, 1948."[1]

Decisive causes of abandonment Occurrences[138]

military assault on settlement 215
influence of nearby town's fall 59
expulsion by Jewish forces 53
fear (of being caught up in fighting) 48
whispering campaigns 15
abandonment on Arab orders 6
unknown 44

Main causes of the Palestinian exodus according to Israeli historian Benny Morris
Wave Period Refugees Main cause

First wave December 1947 – March 1948 about 100,000 sense of vulnerability, attacks and fear of impending attack[136]

Second wave April–June 1948 250,000–300,000[151] attacks and fear of impending attack[152]

Third wave July–October 1948 about 100,000[143] attacks and expulsions[143]

Fourth wave October–November 1948 200,000–230,000[153] attacks and expulsions[149]

Border clearings November 1948 – 1950 30,000-40,000[154]