Yes, this is exactly my point.

Very few countries currently are based on native eviction, where settlers have nearly replaced the indigenous peoples.

As a founding point? Yes, I agree. I also agree that colonization scale done by British was greater than anything ever done before.

However, that wasn’t my point. My point was: almost everyone on Earth lives where they do because their ancestors killed or evicted the people that lived there previously. This is in particular is not unique to any western country. Hell, reading the history of Russia, my home country, makes it pretty clear that my own deep ancestry did plenty of killing and evicting too, mostly of themselves, to get to where they all ended up (not even talking about Siberia here). It wasn’t at the founding point of Russia though, and none of the peoples who lost their wars are culturally alive anymore. Does it matter if all the conquest led to the foundation of a modern country, or just different tribal lands (or later city states)? I don’t think it does.

I think what does matter is justice for those descendants of the colonized who are still alive, and if there’s noone left, at least understanding and recognition of the horribleness that lead up to the point of your birth.

and it means you GO BACK too, no one should give a fuck about which gen. you’re currently a part of.

This would mean that like 99.9% of Earth’s population has to move somewhere. Almost all land was fought over endlessly and changed metaphorical hands multiple times over. What we call “indigenous people” in a territory is usually just whoever was winning those wars before written history began.

What “landback” actually means is recognizing the systemic racism that was and still is perpetuated against the indigenous people by means of taking away their ancestral lands, slaughtering and enslaving their ancestors, and destroying their way of life; and addressing that racism by giving jurisdiction and sovereignty over their lands back to them. It doesn’t mean that everyone but the indigenous people have to move out; descendants of colonizers born there are technically natives of that land too. The difference is that they get systemic advantages from their ancestry whereas indigenous people get systemic discrimination. This is the thing that ought to be addressed. (well, the horrifying economic and governance system that the colonizers brought and festered must be addressed too, but all three are tightly coupled together)

In the case of Israel the difference is that a lot of colonizers are first gen, they are not natives, they do have somewhere to “go back to”, and they are actively perpetuating colonization and genocide rather than simply getting an advantage from their ancestors doing so. In such cases it of course makes sense for the decolonization effort to focus on direct expulsion of invaders.

Don’t forget the cop and the brown-children-bomber. Although maybe austerity cuts will make that one job as well.

That’s a bit better, I guess? But then China still executes the most people in the world every year, most of them not even billionaires. How many of them are innocent working-class people framed for something they didn’t do? (Hint: historically that percentage is alarmingly high if you look at other countries). Fuck that shit, countries should abolish executions after their socialist revolution succeeds.

Counterpoint: if you deem killing hundreds to thousands of others by spreadsheet to make your line go up, you have to be made an example of.

Sure. Confiscate everything they have, confiscate everything their family has, put them in prison. There is little difference in deterrence between that and the death penalty.

I don’t care if Eichmann could have been rehabilitated or if Netanyahu can, they’re not worth the manpower required to get them there.

Whether you care or not is irrelevant when we’re talking about a human life.

Crimes of necessity are one thing, death or cruel punishment won’t do a single bit. Crimes of greed? Those fucks only understand deterrence by threat of violence, because all they think of is themselves.

Sure. Imprisonment is definitionally violence.

If the Sackler family had been executed for their crimes I bet you’d see far fewer claims denied and insulin wouldn’t be worth an arm and a leg.

Or, uh, if this shit was properly regulated in the first place there wouldn’t be as many parasites getting wealthy on it, and there would be no price gouging. Look at the rest of the “developed” world, insulin is basically free there, and 0 executions were needed to get there (unless we’re counting the threat of proletariat revolution, but then the US also had that). Those who would still abuse the system could be imprisoned to stop them from doing so.

Nobody deserves the death penalty. It’s just cruelty with no benefit for the society. Studies show, time after time, that it has little to no deterrent effect. Its only purposes are either narrow-minded vengeance or preventing a person from being freed once the current government fails.

That said, I’m all for confiscating all wealth from anyone worth over a billion dollars and placing them under arrest until they can effectively demonstrate they are no longer a parasite on the society.

Whoa. Honestly, that’s a lot more Nays than I anticipated. Is there an easy way to check what were the nay-sayers positions during the debate?

Don’t get “rest of world” mixed in there; I mean sure, all governments suck in one way or another, but most of them at least aren’t imperialist.