Is what America did to the Native Americans analogous to what Israel did to the Palestinians?

Is what America did to the Native Americans analogous to what Israel did to the Palestinians?

I was talking with someone about the settlement building that is going on recently and they made this comparison, but I'm not sure how genuine it is.

The justification I recall for the American case is that Native American ideas of property were not as developed as the European settlers who had inherited the intellectual legacy of Hobbes and Locke. I don't really know how to develop that argument, but it seems to amount to a negative justification of something like "they didn't really know what they were doing."

I'll be honest in saying I really don't know much about the situation in Palestine/Israel. It's something I've been trying to catch up on and there's alot of reading ahead of me. It seems like international law would have more relevance in treating this specific circumstance.

Please offer opinions or things people could read to improve their understanding of this topic.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/f82d7-SVzCw
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Nah, not only was there no international law at the time, but fucking nobody recognized the Indian shitpiles as nations.

They are both examples of a more powerful force crushing and pushing a native group off their lands. The small details are the same but the actual process is much the same. Justifying pushing the natives off their land by saying they lacked the idea of property is wrong in two senses. One many native tribes gained this idea of property from the Europeans before being kicked off their lands. Second most other tribes had a sense that the property was community owned which is slightly different than nobody owning it. (That being said it was not uniform in any way and many natives had varying beliefs.

But the law doesn't always conform with what is right. And there actually were proscriptions against settlement at various times in colonial and American history, but the settlers broke them. There were also treaties that were broken.

Indians were master treaty breakers so it was only apt the Americans ignored that shit too.

I am not sure I completely understand that argument. I am wary because it sort of sounds very arbitrary.

It's like when people say that something is immoral and they refer to the UN declaration of Human Rights. It's not like that document has an philosophical justifications for the statements it make, it just happens to have been published by an organization with a specific kind of reputation.

Why is international recognition of a place the standard we have for these kinds of matters?

Thanks for this answer.

Do you have any sources for those claims? Native American anthropology is kind of tricky it seems.

Because things like nations and sovereignty don't exist in a vacuum, somebody has to recognize them.

Yeah, but peoples and ethnic groups do exist, and if they've been inhabiting some land for some time, it doesn't take a doctor of philosophy to see that pushing them off their land is wrong, in most modern conceptions of morality.

Objectively they aren't entitled to shit, hence why recognition is needed.