Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 13,219
- 2,253
- 290
Yeah, well, if I can't teach an American to understand the need for acknowledgement and reconciliation, I'm damn sure I'm not going to be able to convince the Arab Muslims. But I'm going to try again...You can not hold a people today responsible for action of people thousands of years ago. People who lived under a completely different set of ethics, customs, and norms. You can not hold children responsible for the acts of their parents.
It is not about holding the children responsible for the actions of the parents. Nor today's people for the actions of people thousands of years ago. It is a simple recognition and acknowledgement of the historical impact of invasion and colonization on the earlier people, and how that, in turn, impacts the present day relationship between the peoples.
Here is an introduction to land acknowledgement and why it matters. Some of it is specific to Canadian First Nations, but for the most part can apply to any peoples affected by invasion and colonization.
Another article sums it up like this: The purpose of these statements is to show respect for indigenous peoples and recognize their enduring relationship to the land. Practicing acknowledgment can also raise awareness about histories that are often suppressed or forgotten.
Yes! Exactly. If there were a living people whose history and culture pre-dated the Jewish people, the Jewish people ABSOLUTELY should make land acknowledgements and meaningful reconciliation. Without question. (There aren't though. And all evidence points to the fact that the Jewish people developed from a local change, rather than an invasion from another point of origin).By that logic, Jews should apologize for the violence they bestowed on the earlier inhabitants when they invaded and conquered them.
Further, I'd push you one more step and suggest that as more indigenous peoples regain their self-determination and sovereignty, and very likely encounter resistance from the settler and colonizing cultures which are accustomed to privilege, it is important for these First Peoples to sensitively respond.
I disagree. I strongly disagree. If its wrong, its always been wrong. It may not have been the norm. It may not have been understood to be wrong. But if it is wrong, then it has always been wrong. And if its not wrong, then let's take down the Dome and the Mosque and re-build the Temple.The thing is, taking over religious sites WAS not problematic. Not then and frankly, only became so in the last century.
Well, no. First of all, there is nothing about the Mount itself that is sacred to Christians. There are other places in the Old City which are, but the Mount is not. Also, I think you minimize the sanctity of the place in the Jewish faith, and neglect entirely the historical and non-religious significance for the Jewish people. That said, of course, people of all faith should be treated equally in that holy place.And now that site is sacred to three very old religions equally.
Shame, we never get to talk about THAT, though, since the conversation always goes sideways into how Jews should be "more respectful" of Muslims. Even though Jews are the ones being mocked, provoked, banned, denied and murdered in their own holy place. The weight of effort you put on this discussion against the Jewish POV is ridiculous given what should be a clear, black-and-white violation of human rights and treaty rights by Muslims towards Jews.