> France should be for the French. <
Well, yes. When the Cherokees say Cherokee land should be for the Cherokees, liberals applaud. And when the Navaho say Navaho land should be for the Navahos, liberals applaud. Etc.
But when the French say France should be for the French, liberals go insane with rage. Funny how that works.
French are white.
That brings up one of my pet peeves, something I call recentism. Recentism is a condition where someone will go only far enough back in history to support their argument.
The Cherokee’s, Navajos, Mexicans, Palestinians, Russias….. love to claims “stolen” lands , but only so far as to when they controlled that land. Never mentioning how they became in control of those lands and who they took them from, and who those they took the land from previously took the land from.
The black hills is a perfect example as it changed hands many times, never peacefully and yet the “white man” must give it back to what the last group of indigenous people who took it from someone before them
Mexican claims are even more ridiculous. Was there a Mexico before the Spanish, BTW what language do most Mexicans speak? I wonder what if any remaining Aztecs, Incas….. think about those claims
Yes the left picks and chooses “victims” and “oppressors “ quite freely
Last thought, I wonder was the western hemisphere actually uninhabited or were they wiped out by those who now claim to be indigenous people. My opinion is they are no different than the European “invaders”. Just depends how far one wishes to go back in time, recentism!