I got the impression that both of these guys were treading lightly so as not to offend too deeply their fellow Liberal tribe members. Yes, there is good reason to be fearful of speaking freely when you know that virtue tyrants can ruin your career! When it comes to free speech these days, it's not hugely different than living in a totalitarian society where fear reigns supreme.
Oh, come on! Right wing violence is mass shootings and running cars into crowds. Left wing violence is throwing mashed potatoes at a Monet. Face it, your world is colored by your own fears.
The Australian experience is interesting because there was no official military campaign against the natives. Their indigenous were literally prehistoric cave-people with nothing but fire and stone tools. They were extremely primitive and highly vulnerable, and were brushed aside by half-starved Anglo peasants and ex-convicts, not soldiers. It was inevitable that someone would eventually show up and displace them, it just happened to be the British. And just as Jews found themselves in Palastine thanks to Nazi displacement, many thousands of early Australian "settlers" weren't exactly there of their own accord either. They arrived in chains.
9:22 - Exactly. Those myths that only European ethic groups engaged in domination/subjugation of those they defeated in battle needs to be destroys. Africans did it to other African tribes, Natives did it to Natives, Europeans did it to the r europeans, Asians to Asians, etc....Wars, battle, and in the past (unfortunately) slavery, are/were part of human reality. Irrespective of 'race'. 18:38 -Gonna disagree there. I may not be the most productive way to pull the 'indigenous card' but Jews are The ethnic group w/ th longest, oldest continuous presence in the region, the Arabs are the invaders (or much much , way later, 'late comers if you like). The argument can and should be made precisely for one reason, to counter Islamist fundamentalist mentality that denies Jew's right to any self determinations and the establishment of Jewish state of their own. Remember this: The UN proposed a Two State Solution in 1947, the Jews accepted, the Arabs rejected it. On Principle. So in this case the 'indigenous' argument needs to be acknowledged, because 1) it is a historical reality, corroborated by archeology. 2) It stands as a basic shield against the Jew hating, anti zionist activism, colonialist' premisse.
For example, there is no published data on trans widows, the ex-wives of men who take on a female persona. The only statistics (now on 56 of us) in the world are at the channel in this handle.
It doesn't make it right, but the fact is that, with rare exceptions, pretty much every place on the planet was once inhabited by a group different than the one that lives there today... and these transitions frequently involved "larger army diplomacy." I read an interesting example of this recently. In places like Minnesota, they recite land acknowledgements that sometimes state that the site is on "ancestral homelands" of a given tribe that lives there today, but not sometimes isn't quite historically accurate. For example, in the 1700's a major incursion started into the state from the Ojibwe from what is now the upper peninsula of Michigan into Dakota lands in Minnesota. The resulting long series of bloody battles saw the Ojibwe displace much of the Dakota from Northern Minnesota. The 1700's is pretty far removed from the end of the ice age.
One interpretation of the "settler colonialist bad" argument is that accepting refugees is a problem if they manage to impose their culture on the country they settle in. I'd like to hear an historical exploration of how refugees become culturally dominant (or not).
