Pants-of-dog wrote:If Muslims did settle, then it is the same as the settlers in SA.
If you want to argue for a revisionist history of South Africa, there is another thread for that, but its not the same, because by the time of the Crusades there was still a protracted conflict between the Islamic world and Christendom, this was not the case in South Africa.
Many settler colonialisms were not intentional attempts to displace natives, some were, and sometimes anti-indigenous attitudes developed over time, but many colonialisms were simply attempts to settle unused land which led to conflict with tribes once arrival already occurred leading to conflict and war. If anybody has a legitimate beef with the Boers, its the khoikhoi or hottentots, but since their conflict ended and they interbred with boers, even thats a hard row to hoe.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not think that the white minority willingly gave up power.
It they weren't violently compelled, it was voluntarily done yes. Were they pressured to do so? Sure, but they could have said "Fuck you" to the UN and international sanctions like many countries tend to do all the time.
Pants-of-dog wrote:then the land reclaiming done by the ANC is simply part of the co-governance process.
The point was that treaty or agreement to co-governance is a de facto
burying of the conflicting grievances. Its a duplicitious and slight-of-hand knavery to "Agree to peace" and then use that agreement as means of accomplishing an act of revenge for something that occurred prior to that "agreement of peace." Its the same in South Africa, and this is exactly why the Crusades are different.
Muslims and Christians were in a continuous and protracted conflict, any settlers in this were only part of an on-going mid-conflict occupation, and there was no agreement to peace and co-governance that was instituted between Islam and Christianity prior to A.D. 1090 that was meant to definitively end that time of conflict and war.
They are completely different matters. So you can add false-equivalency to your red-herring.
Now, if you want to say that "land-appropriation" is not about retro-active justice, but about the rights of the state, that is a separate matter altogether and you would be correct, for allowing a government by popular rule allows for this possibility and so as might makes right, the government will do as it wants and the whites have only themselves to blame for ending apartheid, but i already said this on the South Africa thread. That has no relation to the Crusades though.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Can you give an example of one that you would support?
I could probably find several if I studied every one specifically, but I haven't and don't have time to right now. I'm sure you would have some in mind that would fit my criteria. Would you not?
I suppose if I could think of any example off the top of my head, I would say a rebellion against King Leopold and the Dutch would be easily defensible. The blacks were forcibly made into chattel slaves by the Dutch by unjustifiable aggression and not by contract, there is not much redeemable about Leopold's operations there in my opinion (unlike the British in many cases). I also think the Tibetans have been wickedly oppressed by China, and other examples could probably be given.
If you have some ones you want to me assess specifically, I will and I will give you my honest opinion Pants.
Pants-of-dog wrote:You are corrext. It is not.
Why won't you provide one?
Pants-of-dog wrote:the fact that blacks kept up the fight until Aparthied was over and beyond (until the present, as a matter of fact) justifies land reclaiming in SA. According to your logic.
If there was an actual war between blacks and whites in South Africa, not settled by any treaties, or any agreement to co-governance, then according to my logic the blacks would be justified in trying to take land from whites as an act of war in a protracted war-conflict.
But that seems to be a stretch to claim.
Especially when treaties were signed between black tribes and whites following conflicts in South African history, and the regime that followed apartheid was a de facto
agreement to co-governance between whites and blacks, the whites still had political parties and constitutional rights after apartheid ended, so you can't say it wasn't an agreement to co-governance.
Indeed, would any reasonable person really say that South Africa was never an actual nation or political entity but merely a region of protracted conflict between rival nations (white nations v. black nations)? Is that what you are claiming?
Like I said, that would be a stretch.