On Arguments About Indigeneity

(And other synonyms for legitimacy)

On a bsky thread[1], I noticed a type of argument that I’ve seen a lot before.

Specifically, people reacting to a (perceived![1]) argument that “state X - engaged in some amount of ethnic cleansing - is legitimate because <some positive argument for the indigeneity of the majority ethnicity of state X>” by engaging with the because<> and trying to provide a counterargument on its own terms.

I think this is a classic example of Accepting A False Premise. You are not cleverly undermining the argument of, say, a Nazi by - implicitly or actively! - accepting that the genetically superior master races are justified in doing away with lesser races, but suggesting that their measure of genetic superiority is contestable.

Likewise, “Aha, justifying massacres of natives by reference to Bringing Them Civilization was bad because - who really was The Most Civilized Race?”.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t - otherwise/in other contexts - contest the concept of Genetic Superiority/True Folkness/Civil-Maxing/True-Faith-Keeping/less objectionable positive claims to legitimacy. I’m sympathetic to the anti-crap reflex, but I’m skeptical that it will have much impact[2].

I *am* saying that it’s the *negative claims* to legitimacy that are problematic[3]. Pre-emptive clarification - I don’t mean *all of them always*[4] - I mean that *the claims about legitimacy that are problematic are ~always the negative ones*.

There’s a great - and blessedly short - documentary by Louis Theroux on Israeli Settlers. One of the settlers interviewed is a middle-aged+ Texan - born in Texas, lived in Texas until a few years ago, very audibly Texan[5].

He speaks at some length[5] about the legitimacy of his connection to Israel - by reference to his blood and his religion. It’s fine to be personally skeptical about any/all of that. But it doesn’t matter and getting drawn into debating a position *whose premise you don’t accept* is leaping legs first into an idiot trap. It’s *fine* - positively feeling yourself to be connected with a state is not a problem *whatever your reasoning* - because positive connection is not in itself problematic.

What *is* problematic is that he pivots - when questioned - to rejecting the legitimacy of Palestinians who live less than 20 mins walk away[7] - he doesn’t even think it’s legitimate for them to be called Palestinians.

And he’s very comfortable with bad things happening to those people/ethnic cleansing in general. That’s the problem - not his blood, not his religion, not his life history or those of his forebears. The context makes his interview striking - and makes you think about US involvement/impact on US politics - but it wouldn’t substantively matter if he was giving the interview through a translator (other interviewees did).

The issue is that negative claims about legitimacy are a common base for doing bad things to individuals/large groups/ethnic cleansing in general. This is the stuff that it makes sense to contest - and specifically contest as a basis for doing bad things[8] to people.

This is also true for domestic British discourse - it doesn’t matter if Matthew Goodwin feels *really really really* connected to England[9]. It matters that this begins and ends with him obsessing about claims other British(!) citizens are less legitimate.

Tldr; don’t argue from premises you think are bullshit - and at least pause to consider how you think about them before engaging - even when drawn in by the dodgy post-premise reasoning/conclusions!

[1] This is one of those threads where I don’t think anyone is actually in disagreement on conclusions, merely the language frames used to get there.

[2] Just because someone tells you - or even possibly personally believes - something is the foundation of their belief system/political coalition/state … doesn’t mean it’s true. Even when people don’t have substantial incentives to bullshit … they are about as good at diagnosing the foundation of their beliefs as they are diagnosing which sort of cancer they’ve got.

[3] Even for eugenics - the conviction of various deranged overmoneyed individuals that they have superior genes that must be preserved and spread through inseminating as many volunteers as possible … well, this is your hackneyed Merchant Prince Loses His Marbles story. In the 19th century, they’d go off and found a commune … which would instantly collapse. It’s profoundly weird and distasteful - but people can **** who they like as they like, however much I’d like to not hear about it. Where eugenics moves from “backing away” to “call the police” is when it moves from “positive eugenics” (certain folk - me for instance - should have more sex and reproduce and eat my special health cereal mix) to “negative eugenics” (some people should be sterilised/dealt with).

[4] Telling some people with <anywhere Not France> citizenship who’ve never lived in France but would like to buy a place and retire there that they aren’t already French citizens and need to go through the application process is not automatically problematic.

[5] I’m British, where the principal organ of racism is the ear.

[6] Undercut only by instantly rejecting any relevance of the laws of the state of Israel! As a not-particularly-integrated migrant, even I found myself choking a bit at a recently immigrated guy with a thick Texan accent saying that the State of Israel - which funds the permanent military base required to protect his occupation of territory illegal under Israeli law let alone international law - can go **** itself because he serves a higher law. But - as noted above - this is missing the point!

[7] No intervening border - this is a settlement in, I believe, the West Bank

[8] Not [4] - but obviously anyone asking for the *precise definition* of ethnic cleansing/racism should be treated the way you’d treat someone asking for the *precise definition* of paedophilia (enhanced scrutiny/follow-up questions!).

[9] It is not, in fact, problematic at all to talk about your connection or love for England - it is not only not problematic but actively banal, second only to saying you like dogs.