Comment by aguaviva

Comment by aguaviva 10 months ago

is however absolutely bizarre

Not in the least. All descendants of any reasonably fixed population anywhere in the world have a perfect right to keep living where they are.

Migrants from other places can ask for permission to settle there. If they can point to ancestry which left or were expelled the region many centuries ago, they can put that in their application. However this fact does not by itself establish a "claim", or a "right" to that land, beyond a symbolic or philosophical one.

In this context, the idea that a migrant population (having been for a very long time had widely dispersed from the region and mixing with other groups) should have not just intrinsic "rights" to a piece of land it wants, but more rights than the actual continuously resident population of that land -- is quite bizarre, indeed.

gryzzly 10 months ago

I didn’t say no right. I said “more”. You conveniently omit any agency of the people, who refused most agreements on civil division or dialogue.

Reply View 1 reply

aguaviva 10 months ago

I didn't say you did, and I did include (and italicize even) the "more" part, but it was in a later edit that you may not have seen.
You conveniently omit any agency of the people, who refused most agreements on civil division or dialogue.
Aside from this being a warped narrative -- none of the interceding events, however you might prefer to spin them, have any bearing on the basic principle (and the categorical distinction between the types of claims) just outlined. Which of course applies to any continuously resident community of peoples, anywhere.

Reply View | 0 replies