Claims to an old/lost land

Post Reply New Topic

How long a time should pass before the descendants of the lost land finally relinquish their claims?

What if anything should be done to accommodate the descendants?

Should violence be used to accomplish their goals, reclaiming their land?









I'd like to see the responses.

I figure that anybody who can find Atlantis should be free to claim it.

I think if you leave a land consider it not yours to take. Yes diaspora are bad things but that doesn't give justification of future generations coming back and claiming some divine right at the regardless of how it affect the inhabitants.


Well I'm not sure if you mean the descendant of those who left. As it happen often there are in fact genetic descendants, even if they refuse to see it that way. Having said that a lot of these so called bloodline or sacred tribes coming from the same root have been proven to be false.

Ideally there is no need for violence, but as people are unable to learn lessons from history and are obsessed with the idea of nationalism and territory it is inevitable.

Those prats never owned the land in the first place, they only say it's theirs because of some made-up folklore in a book that some people put together in the 4th century. I say if the current lot who are there want it, then the others can just stop being emo little Wallies and get over it. Oh, and can anyone with an explaination that makes sense tell me why it supposedly took a group of about 5000 people 40 years to walk from Egypt to Palestine when they are right next to each other, considering a group of maybe 100 walked from Gallipoli in Turkey to a place in France in roughly a couple of months? Hmmmmm?

you sure about that? i could have sworn they had found archaeological data that said otherwise.

It's possible the Mesopotamians may have been the first ones there anyway, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, just because they believe some made-up promise doesn't meansthey can kill whoever is there and move back in (even if the others are's playing nicely). Oh, and forget Armageddon, the Dome of the Rock ain't going nowhere in a hurry.

There is prehistoric finds, maybe we should dress up like cavemen an stake our claim.

This whole notion of right to a territory is nonsense as you say.

As it happens one argument made was there was a 'nation' of Israel, as if this someohow make it justifiable. Actually this is somewhat historically spurious anyway, the concept of nations is much more modern. Also what is more accurate was there was a number of loosely connected kingdoms.

totally.


/that was what i thought when i first saw the title of this thread.

(preface: I'm not saying you are a neo-con)


I find it curious that neo-cons who think that the Jews have a valid 2,000 year old claim to Israel don't think that the descendants of slaves should have a claim for damages from slavery that ended in the 1860s (or from another century of Jim Crow and other forms of institutional racism designed to hold them back and cause a collapse of their culture). Shouldn't the nation that caused the problem be responsible for fixing it? Shouldn't that responsibility persist until the problem no longer exists??

monty makes a rather good point in my opinion.

First, I think that you are correct: if slavery does not imply modern entitlement, there can be no "right" to reclaim a long lost land such as Israel (although it's a little late to be closing pandora's box).
Second, I'm unsure about your second comment. How we establish the cut off is difficult. Although property theory could imply an entitlement due to a past wrong, it is difficult to establish just how much. The modern wrong is not something which is the responsibility of anyone to repair because their current state is necessarily a mix of their ancestors being deprived of their rights in the past as well as bad investments afterwards that were within the volition of the individuals in question. Now, one might argue that their current state is determined by the circumstances they were given, but without personal responsibility the property theory system I am thinking about collapses and is no longer a justification for reparations. The farther back in time, the more ambiguous how much needs to be done in order to rectify the past injustice.

But anyway, by the time you get thousands of years back, a property claim is void in my opinion. But I am not sure exactly how I would go about justifying that, beyond how hopeless the task of figuring out what degree of compensation is just for the modern parties.

What's all this about Israel?

I thought this thread was about giving Texas back to the Apache's

Or the Aborigines getting their stolen generation back.... Me? I think it was sold at the pub for a few cases of beer and some fags.

There is archaeological evidence for the existence of Judea. It is not at all contested that the Jews lived their once by anyone serious. And Jewish mansuscripts dating prior to the Christian Era have been found.

Honestly would all the people who argue against religion who read nothing but polemics please shut. the hell. up.

You make atheists everywhere look like frothing wack jobs.

i get what you mean and the dialect differences...but that was a poor choice of words for this board.

edit: not saying you're gay bashing or anything, moreso that other members will take it as a way to either gay bash or otherwise make some really bad joke about gays.

they were stupid and bad at direction

and remember the desert there was a lot smaller 2000 years ago

so what the hell