This Ancient Claim shit is the worst man
this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2026
136 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
832 readers
386 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
they love it because its complete bullshit so there’s no real way to argue against it.
The colonial relationships argument in the post above is a good one. The fact that your ancestors put down roots on an island doesn't inherently give you rights to that island, but hundreds of years of colonial development depriving a population of wealth definitely gives that people the right to reparations, and all people definitely have the right to self determination.
"all people definitely have the right to self determination."
Embrace Morgenthau thought. Reject German right to self determination.
What does this mean sorry
After WW2, some had doubts the Germans could be trusted with a country.
and they are proven correct, but they didnt go far enough. none of the euros can be trusted with a country, JDPON is the only solution.
Dawg I've been reading about the Holocaust and I'm just blown away by the full societal buy-in: thousands of camp guards, support staff, company foreman over slave labor, factories built by camps for the labor.
Like, I don't see how you can continue with a national project that lead to so much of that nation being willing participants (to be clear this applies to the U$ and and a number of other national projects).
I'd like a process that attacks Ancient Claims that's sensitive to the fact that some of them are legitimate.
Like, native tribes have a case, israel and... whatever is going on with Greenland do not.
if the last time there was a state headed by x people was literally thousands of years ago, and the people have been vacated that long, it's pretty hard to be serious about it.
if those people still live on their lands in diminished fashion? if they're still around and still live downstream of oppression meant to keep them under thumb? if they were displaced in a one-sided colonial war and genocide? yeah, the least that can be done is restoring lands to their rightful owner (the descendants of the ones robbed and murdered) - i can abide that. i think that would be cool. If a tribal coalition had ambitions to rule the PNW i'd be like hell yeah motherfuckers can i hellp?
but then it's like, the diaspora set in motion in the first fucking century CE can't reasonably claim a fucking thing about Palestine. Nor is "white people were a present on Greenland once a thousand years ago" valid at all.
but if you're a group affected by such Ancient Claim it's easy to invest yourself if you're predisposed to it. Kind of a scary amount of momentum as desperate but privileged people start looking for a frontier opportunity to escape the troubles back home... it's not legitimate but i'd love to see that shit in the context of an articulated deconstruction+destruction of the premise.
I'd like a process that attacks Ancient Claims that's sensitive to the fact that some of them are legitimate
the land claims of colonized peoples are not ancient, and they're borne of ongoing injustice. we need to be very strict about not allowing cynical asymmetrical analogies to be considered in the same category.
israeli claims are not anything like the klamath wanting their land back which was stolen less than 300 years ago, from a nation that still oppresses them. israeli claims are like a nahua guy showing up to the navajo reservation demanding they give him aztlán
Sorry, right. That's what i was trying to articulate
It’s just muddying the waters for anyone who actually cares about colonialism
blood quantum but woke
Didn't even read the entire Wikipedia article.
It is unknown whether the Dorset people ever encountered the later Thule people.
The vikings also never adapted and died off while the inuits thrived. How the flying fuck can you claim a land that your ancestral settlement couldn’t survive in?
I love not understanding colonial relationships
Denmark didn't allow Iceland and Greenland to develop their economy for 250 years. All exports were forced to go straight to Denmark, no trading with anyone else. No imports from anyone else. The low population and lack of wealth in indigenous communities (indigeneity comes from being the victim of the relationship) comes from being a COLONY
It doesn't matter who was there first, it literally benefits everyone in Greenland to have independence on their own terms, and reparations to fix their underdevelopment
romans were promised to eat my ass 2000 years ago
obviously Greenland is even worse of a colonial relationship than Iceland because there was also a cultural genocide of the Inuit people, but I'm sure we all know that
Funny that they never apply that same logic to themselves living in America
The Vikings arrived before they did.
Wouldn't that more legitimize Denmark's claim then? Since they are a Nordic country.
the 4 ""vikings"" (they arrived in the 1000s, not really monk-reaving raiders) that took the last boat out when their crop stores ran out went to iceland in all likelihood
I'm not an expert but from what I understand there were Norse colonies on Greenland for a while, mostly for harvesting Walrus ivory, but they were pretty much just tiny outposts for collecting one rare commodity for export back to their home. Also I think they generally had pretty amicable relations with the Inuit.
they were permanent farming communities, not trade factories. their main/lucrative export was that ivory but they couldn't trade it frequently with annual or less contact with the metropole. as the climate changed and agriculture got worse, they failed to adapt to hunting for more of their food and they all left or died. it's unclear exactly when, but from the late 14th to the mid 15th century they were in stark decline.
A podcast I listen to, that is about the fall of civilizations, (aptly named "The fall of civilizations") did an episode on the Greenland Vikings, if I remember correctly one hypothesis is also that some in the colonies did leave, but some may have just joined the natives and lived amongst them.
There's some genetic evidence of them even spreading to North America but it's pretty disputed because not many people in Canada are full blooded indigenous anymore in regions the Greenlanders could access.
Fucked that colonialism killed so many cultures, we could've learned so much about these regions
Good podcast, but very lib host. His episode on ancient China is pretty much what you'd expect.
Oh absolutely agree on the lib part. I believe he started using AI for the video that rolls along the podcast on that platform?
I never did watch it and only saw a glimpse lately.
Oh really? Gross, I listened a few years ago, so I haven't seen anything like that.
the olde roanoke shuffle
They're pulling out the Kingdom of Israel stuff lmao
Fun math time
Since everyone has two genitors, going back one generation means multiplying the number of ancestors from the last generation by two, meaning for g generations we have 2^g ancestors. Going back 3000 years ago, when the Kingdom of Israel existed, generously assuming only three generations per century, we have at least 30 generations of ancestors. This amounts 2^30 ancestors, which is a bit more than a billion. In 1300 BC we estimate a total population on earth of 100 million people. So less than a tenth of your total ancestors. Which means, statistically, you certainly have absolutely everyone from these times as ancestors, even if population movement was very small, because one single cross-culture child carries almost all ancient ancestors from two part of the world.
The tweet's Greenland bs is less absurd, we sit at 2 millions ancestors for 400 million people in 1300 AD but that's still a pretty high chance of having Dorset ancestry
Your math doesn't work because it overcounts distinct ancestors, and human populations, like all existing species that reproduce sexually, inbreed. As humans have migrated, they have maintained a single population that genes move through in a geographical network, if that makes sense. Imagine 3 villages in a line. Village A and B have babies together, Village B and C have babies together. Even if village A and C never have babies together, they're highly connected re: recent ancestry. This extended and extends around the globe.
Though, it should be mentioned, there have been isolated populations in the recent past, so it isn't accurate to say we all share the same ancestors over that past. For example, the land bridge between Asia and The America's essentially ceased to exist, so the shared ancestry between a Kongo and a Mapuche is not as recent as Sioux and Blackfoot, but likely more recent than an Aboriginal Australian and a Tamil. There are long family lines in different places and indigenous groups that are not shared with others, or barely are, with these isolations being disrupted only fairly recently. So we are simultaneously all closely related humans, but also we often have distinct family lines whose distinctness can span 20,000 years, though that is slowly disappearing.
The weirdo in the screenshot is still wrong of course, both in basic factual content and in their own settler logic.
I see, so I underestimated how sendentary humans were right? Because I knew we couldn't do without some degree inbreeding but I assumed that given the number of wars of conquest and commerce there was at least a few individuals that crossed gaps between remote populations
Not necessarily sedentary, it's actually a process that has both properties of isolation and "mixture" in different quantities and over geography and time. People moved, then some stayed in places, then some moved again. Splitting and joining while moving and staying. But the Americas were pretty isolated once the land bridge went away. A flow path for makin' babies was effectively cut off. Similar thing with what is now Australia and the surrounding islands, they used to be connected to Asia by a land bridge but were then fairly separated for probably 10k years or so, maybe more given that some groups were even more isolated within that subset.
Inbreeding is a guaranteed phenomenon, it is just a matter of degree. No matter how you want to make humans make babies with other humans, they share ancestry just like all of us do. We are all related, we all share common ancestry. But the question raised re: more recent shared parentage can change the result of this question. If you make the cutoff 10k years ago, then no we don't all share parentage. Some people have a parental lineage that is distinct from another group of people, for that specific period. If you relaxed it to 50k it might vanish. If you relax it entirely you can ask what the mrca is, the most recent common ancestor, though that is a statistical estimate.
Basically I just want to point out that humans have dual character when it comes to us being related to one another. It's similar to how different ethnic backgrounds often means people looking similar within the ethnic background but a bit different across them. All completely modern humans that are the same in every way that matters, but also with variation that is due to this spread-isolate-spread process.
This is also why medicine has problems with Eurocentricity. Many studies have focused solely on Euro patients and have not accounted for other genetic backgrounds or lifestyles. So they give wrong doses of drugs or misdiagnose, on top of all the cultural biases that discriminate what carr a person receives. Sickle cell anemia is a common example where it's much more common for some ethnic backgrounds than others, reflecting populations that were somewhat separated and therefore acquired variation that established itself in one vs another population. Or lactose tolerance, which is actually the "odd one out" genetically speaking, not lactose intolerance.
There was also the Toba Eruption around 74,000 years ago that bottle necked humanity down to only a couple thousand people (roughly 10,000 humans). The majority of this population was between South Africa and Ethiopia. So yeah, the whole "Our ancestors lived here before you and we're going to steal your shit" Israelis and Americans like to use doesn't hold up.
Don't worry I'm sure Israel wants that area too
So for anyone actually wondering:
The medieval warm period was what destroyed the Dorset culture, as they mostly practiced Ice Hole Fishing for larger sea mammals, rather than using canoes to fish. So when the weather warmed and there were more holes in the ice, it made their primary way of gathering food impossible. This same medieval warm period was also a massive boon to the Thule, who benefited from the warmer conditions and so spread out much further. Inuit legends about the people living there before them describe them as skittish and avoiding contact, there aren't stories of impressive conquests or justifications for massacres that we see in folklore that describes one culture wiping out another, additionally, since the two societies had very different lifestyles, they never really competed for resources, so it was unlikely that the Thule ever "wiped out" the Dorset.
This dude literally took out the wikipedia page on the Dorset, ignores 90% of it that actively contradicts his claim and them cherry picks a phrase and pretends it says opposite of what it actually says. This is advanced level racist bullshit.
Yeah chuds do this with the Maori in New Zealand because they came there 750-1000 years ago
Oh like more or less when the English came to England?
Hmmm, with this line of thinking, you could insist that Han people are "More native" to Xinjiang than Uyghur people. That... Irish people are "More native" to Hungary than Magyar people? Oh, and Egyptians are probably "more native" to north america than europeans (but that sounds cool actually)
Oh, and Egyptians are probably "more native" to north america than europeans (but that sounds cool actually)
Mormon spotted
truly there is nothing new under the sun lol
ew no. i thought it was a common speculation that ancient egyptians might have made it to north america, but maybe i got the idea from that famous early 2000s urban fantasy book written by a sex offender
white americans 3000 years ago
The Arctic foxes?
Woke triangulation, fucking demons
By that logic the world belongs to the oysters!