@Matias

Yes.

And I don’t doubt that’s exactly what many of them did, because tribalism is one of H.sapiens’ strongest instincts.

@Matias
The only rights anyone has are those which they are able to defend or which they are able to convince everyone else to respect. So no, they don’t really have any right to ownership of place. Rights and blame are imaginary constructs. We can pick a side and throw our energies in with them, depending on how our sympathies tug at our consciences, but if right and wrong are written by God or Nature somewhere, I haven’t found it. The Europeans did what they did. The natives responded how they responded. Life goes on.

Should fleas invade my house when I bring a stray cat in to feed it? According to my sentiments, no. But I know it is their nature to do so. So I can adjust my behavior according to reality, and save myself the emotional stress of living in the world of “shoulds.”

@Matias
What about homeless people? Where are they supposed to “stay”? Nobody wants them. Are they supposed to hover in midair?

@Matias

I’m not a progressive humanist or a cynic or a nihilist. I’m a compassionate realist.

But I didn’t think your post was about me - I thought it was about European racists pretending to not be racist.

I don’t think any “conversion” has taken place in me since 2017 when I joined this site.

I don’t assume my personal preferences are aligned with some universal morality, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have personal preferences.

I’m a Berniecrat all the way, but I don’t subordinate my voice to his every utterance. I have no idea if he believes in an objective morality or not.

I tend to think Platonic forms, like justice, do exist (by way reason - not morality) but they have no force of their own. They will be fought for, and against, by humans, and whoever wins will win. What little resources I have to contribute in this brief life will be donated for, rather than against, but I harbor no delusions about my preferences being aligned with some assumed objective moral force. Concept, yes. Force, no.

@Matias
Just depends on one’s understanding of the concept of racism I suppose.

I don’t know anything about ethno-pluralism other than what you have supplied here, but if one opposes the mingling of cultures/races/types, upon what grounds could that objection rest, other than an assumption of superiority?

Before I could compose a “real” argument for, I’d need to see a real argument against that conflation.

@Matias
Sounds like faulty science to me. All humans are the same species, so the “invasive species” excuse is exactly that - an excuse.

Scientists tell us these days that there is no such thing as “race.” But that doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as racism obviously. So if racism isn’t about race, what is it about?

It’s about xenophobia. The “ethno-pluralists” are people who are, for the most part, young enough to have been born into a world that already knows that racism is out of fashion. So, like the uneducated folks who want to call Nazis leftists, they want to avoid the stigma of racism by inventing other excuses for their xenophobia that make them sound legit.

I’m not buyin’ it.

I would have more respect for them if they would just call themselves ethno-xenophobes and be done with it. Then at least they would be honest.

I’m not aware of any scientific basis for a claim of “suffering” due to the mingling of peoples, other than the perceived suffering that is xenophobia, which is the only active ingredient of racism.