There's no need of an expert
The white man is not indigenous of africa, never was, never will
And you would be an arab in my country I would tell you like it is; arabs aren't indigenous of europe, end of debate
Everyone is indigenous to Africa if you extend the timeline long enough. Present for 350 years and speakers of the most common African language in the country (Afrikaans for SA) are also qualifiers for indigenous status. Also, things like contribution to progress and growth should entitle a people to a country to call home. Just like the white settlers in the USA.
No not everyone is indigenous from africa, just as not everyone is indigenous from europe
I have exactly zero african ancestor
Africa isn't the "craddle of humanity", white europeans don't come from africa, and white europeans have zero black african ancestor, that's why they are called white to begin with
Black europeans are like white africans, they aren't indigenous to the land they claim is theirs now
...
If you want to persist in denying the obvious, fine, go ahead, it's not going to make it go away
You're invaders/intruders on this land from day 1
Oh sure it doesn't sound good put like that, but that's reality
Reality is that "you", your ancestors, took this land by force of arms, not only but also. And for that reason, you the descents, also have to keep and maintain this conquered territory by force of arms, because that's part of the heritage
Either you take the heritage or you don't, but it comes in full, there's no cherry picking
Nations don't have a right to exist, only a right to defend themselves
Perhaps, but you can only be an invader/intruder if there is a 'first nation' present before your arrival. Who owns Mars? Who rightfully owns the land where Israel is right now? You can also legitimately purchase land or 'settle by agreement' with the 'first nation' without force of arms. This is the basis for legitimacy of the white tribe of africa who are not claiming outright ownership, only the right to self determination. If losing your land in war, immigration, or outbreeding by another culture means it no longer belongs to your people, you deprive all cultures of their 'soil', which is contra to conserving human biodiversity. And, big picture, also justifies white genocide rabbi.
"not indigenous to africa"
Sounds like goalpost moving. And here I thought from your posts that you weren't some kind of faggot.
We're not talking about who belongs. We're talking about "what belongs", namely "what belongs to whom."
Fact is, like typical animals, these fuckers showed up looking to rape rob and loot, long after the south africans.
This isn't an issue of 'who attacked who', or "who is native", it's an issue of property rights and genocide.
Edit: God dammit. I'm just pissed. I've always seen the blackpilled response and thought "okay, yeah, might makes right, it's just how the world works", but I don't understand the need to point it out. I guess it might have value in normalizing the notion but I think it probably just demoralizes sane people. It's a net loss.
People deprived or killed by our enemies can still do good if we treat them as they should be treated, with the dignity afforded to icons, in the same way the punishment following civil disobedience elevates the cause and movement, instead of blaming them for what was done to them. Victim blaming presumes the victim is at fault for losing, but anyone thats ever been involved in any obstacle, or struggle in life knows, you can put up your best fight and still lose by circumstance or plain bad luck. To shoulder the down trodden with the burden of their loss is adding salt to an open wound, and I find it repugnant, as if to suggest theres no honor in a good fight.
And in that case, why fight at all? Why risk anything?
You see the defeatism in that outlook?
There is dignity and worthiness in a righteous cause, and what better cause then the cold outrage of those wrongly put upon. No. Ours? Ours is to try.
(post is archived)