World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
I understand and, in principle, agree with the sentiment, but I feel like "indigenous" implies people who've been there since prehistory and Aotearoa was uninhabited by humans until about 1320 CE. The "indigenous" Maori only beat the Europeans there by a few hundred years.
Like Vin Diesel said, "winning is winning," but still, we're not exactly talking about the kind of margin people like the Aboriginal Australians or the Native Americans had.
The Aztec Empire was founded in 1428 by people who migrated from the north to the Valley of Mexico.
By your reasoning, the Aztecs should not be counted as the indigenous people of the Valley of Mexico. They certainly are considered as such.
Similarly, the Inuit in Greenland only got there after the Vikings. The Vikings died out, the Inuit stayed. Again, they are considered indigenous.
In all three cases- the Aztecs, the Inuit and the Maori, they had developed unique cultures. In the case of the Aztecs and the Maori, Europeans then arrived and destroyed those cultures.
I mean if you really want to be technical, the only place humans are indigenous is the East African Rift Valley.
I would also suggest you look at the second definition here:
There are two ways of looking at your argument:
Consider the Aztecs narrowly as a fully separate and distinct people. In that case, no, they don't count as "indigenous" because there were other peoples (e.g. Teotihuacan people and Toltecs) there before them.
Consider the Aztecs broadly, meaning you're really talking about the Nahua people as a whole. Then yes, they do count as "indigenous," but were also there way before 1428.
You don't get to have it both ways, with Schrödinger's "indigenous" being simultaneously the first and not arriving until 1428.
Your argument is like claiming that the Romans were the "indigenous" people of central Italy and have been there since 753 BCE and not a minute before, because (for some reason) the Latins and Sabines (and the Italic tribes they descended from) don't count.
Here's a question for you: who are the "indigenous" people of the Falkland Islands? Is it Europeans, or nobody?
Did you read the definition?
Yes. Answer the question.
If you read the definition, the question was answered before you asked it.
I want you to say it. There are two possibilities, and the conversation can't move forward until I know which one you think it is. Quit dancing around the issue.
Why you think I have any reason to do what you demand is beyond me.
Believe it or not, I'm not actually trying to troll you here -- despite, at this point, you pissing me off with your cutesy obstinance.
You know what? Fuck it. I'll just get to the point despite your refusal to cooperate:
I can only assume you're thinking, but refusing to answer, "no, the European-descended people on the Falkland Islands don't count as indigenous (definition 2) because they were 'colonists' and didn't arrive before themselves."
In that case, here's the real point I was trying to get at: what definition of "colonist" applies to those Europeans but not also the Polynesians, without relying on some kind of European exceptionalism? In what way was the Polynesian expansion across the Pacific not an act of colonization, just like what the Europeans were doing in the Falklands? If the implication is that the ability to "colonize" is exclusively an Age-of-Discovery-European thing, or that Polynesians somehow lacked the capacity to "colonize" places because of some "noble savage" bullshit, I'm not buying it!
In other words, I object to that line of thinking not because I'm trying to diminish the Maori's claim to Aotearoa, but because making Europeans exceptional sells the Polynesians short.
Now, there is another connotation of "colonist:" the kind that is starkly contrasted with "indigenous" in the sense that they're newcomers who arrive at a place that already has people living there and subjugate them while claiming the "new" territory for the country they came from. In that context, we can definitely talk about how the Europeans who showed up in Aotearoa were "colonists" and the existing Maori population were their "indigenous" victims. That's definitely a definition that differentiates between the two groups!
...Except that going by that meaning, the Europeans who settled the Falklands couldn't have been "colonists" because there wasn't anybody there to subjugate before they showed up. So does that mean European-descended Falkland Islanders do count as "indigenous" (definition 2) after all, since they were the ones who inhabited the place from the earliest times?
The conclusion I have to draw is this: either both the Polynesian-descended Maori in Aotearoa and the European-descended Falkland Islanders are "indigenous," or neither of them are.
If you disagree, I would -- genuinely! -- love to know why.
Well that's a silly assumption since it literally goes against the definition.
You've got to be fucking kidding me. That's it? That's all you're gonna say? After dicking me around and forcing me to spend a bunch of time trying to anticipate your half of the conversation (at least if I wanted to get a conclusion to it), you're just going to mock me for guessing wrong?!
Goddamnit, this is why I wanted you to just give me a straight answer in the first place!
You're a mod -- ban yourself for violating rule 5 or 6 or something! Fuck!
I didn't force you to do anything. I simply refused to do what you demanded.
You baited me by engaging in less-than-good faith. If you didn't want to have a conversation, you could've just not replied!
I did nothing of the sort. I gave you a definition. I never said or even implied anything other than what the definition said. I cannot help what you assume just because I refuse to do what you order me to do.
What's your goal here? What are you trying to accomplish right now?
I'm not trying to accomplish anything. You're the one making demands and getting angry at me about things only you are responsible for.
Why?
I'm sorry, I cannot explain to you why you do the things you do.
Why are you not trying to accomplish anything?
I don't even understand the question. Because... I'm not? It's like asking why I'm not hopping on one leg. It's just not something I'm doing.
But you are continuing to reply. Why?
You keep asking me questions. It seems courteous to answer them.
What changed between now, when it seems courteous to answer questions, and upthread, when you evaded answering my initial one?
I answered your question to begin with too. I told you to read the definition because it already told you the answer. And then you, for some reason, decided I was saying the definition meant the opposite of what it said. Much like I can't control you, I can't help it if you don't accept my answers.
There's a thing called Grice's Maxims that describe the rules of conversations -- specifically, about how things can be implied without being said, yet still be very real and expected to be understood by both parties to the conversation.
By asking the question after having read the definition -- and in fact, reiterating that I wanted an answer after having confirmed to you that I had read the definition -- it was 100% crystal clear to you that claiming the definition answered the question was not adequate. Yet you still claimed it. In other words, you were violating -- not flouting, violating -- the maxims.
You have been continuing to violate those maxims throughout this discussion. Why are you being deliberately uncivil?
Not following some rules you expect me to follow is not lack of civility.
Regularly ordering people to do things and then getting angry at them when they don't salute you and say, "sir, yes sir!" is, however, not especially civil.
Yet again, I have no reason to do what you command me to do.