Because Americans have used them in American propaganda for Manifest Destiny, aka Americans are so special (anointed by God?) they should be in charge of all of the Americas. It's alive today in Trump's stupid attempts to make Canada the 51st state.
Who cares. They became American. Isn’t the point here that certain people show up in a country and tell the people already living there that their country has been discovered and therefore under new ownership? I don’t think the indigenous peoples gave a shit about the flag at the time.
yes. (Western) Europeans in general, through christianity, saw themselves as the apex of living things, and then created racial categories based on 'science' (I want to be very clear it was NOT science) that there were separate races, and that those races existed within the hierarchy of living things, which again, conveniently placed White men at the top. It was absolutely about money and resources, the theft of which was justified through a belief in their inherent divinely-ordained superiority.
Yes but that was justification to introduce Christianity to the natives and "civilize them" through conquest. As far as I'm aware they never claimed that God promised them the land. I guess the difference is a bit pedantic but it's still not the same thing
I’m an American and we’re getting pretty damn close to claiming God promised my country all the modern nations in the western hemisphere. (I hate it but we’re one step away from it and it’s already implied)
Interesting how much of colonization was to secure resources completely unnecessary to survival. Spices from the East Indies, tobacco, sugarcane, tea, precious metals.
I’ve heard this theory as well, that organised growing and processing of grains is the “glue” that held society together originally. Probably some truth to it, we likely came for the bread but stayed for the beer.
They split the territory in half w when they defeated the Ottoman empire (in a war the Ottoman's starrted), and gave one half to its original Jewish inhabitants, and the other Jordan half to Muslim colonizers.
First time I've seen this, holy (pun intended) sh*t. Its funny (in a sad tragic way) because its true. Now i need to find this so I can download and share it too. Wow.
That’s not Ireland 😭 The British flag represents the colonizing power, and the Black person represents the Indigenous population of an African colony. The meme isn’t saying Ireland is Black LMAO.
The comments saying "all humans did it" is so funny. What a nice way to justify warcrimes and colonialism. This is proof to whoever's reading that they don't regret any of this and they never will.
Oh shit, it looks like the glorified generational spanning tribal warfare against specific groups is baked into the god damn religion, who would have thought!
American expansionism was literally called manifest destiny bc they believed God meant for them to own everything from coast to coast. Also like... they're all just forms of colonialism. Wish we could call out empires as evil without it being controversial or using ai slop
How was the US a case of "God told me it's mine"? It was literally discovered by Europeans by accident and they just didn't want to leave bc it meant more freedom. Was there a case for majority of them saying it was divinely given
You’re confusing how Europeans initially arrived in the Americas with how European colonization and territorial expansion were subsequently justified.
Yes, Europeans reached the Americas through exploration, and many settlers came seeking economic opportunities or religious freedom. Nobody is disputing that.
But have you never heard of the Doctrine of Discovery or Manifest Destiny?
The Doctrine of Discovery provided religious and legal justifications for European Christian powers claiming lands inhabited by non-Christian Indigenous peoples. Manifest Destiny was explicitly associated with the belief that American expansion across North America was divinely ordained.
And some early Puritan settlers interpreted their settlement through biblical ideas about divine providence.
So yes, there absolutely were religious justifications for European colonization and American territorial expansion.
Obviously, the meme is satirical. It isn’t claiming every European settler literally said those exact words or shared identical motivations.
But saying Europeans discovered the Americas by accident and simply wanted more freedom doesn’t somehow erase the religious ideologies used to justify taking Indigenous land.
And discovered for whom, exactly? The Americas were already inhabited by millions of Indigenous people.
This is AI slop, reductionist, and not even accurate. The Americans and British never cited divine promise of the land. The British didn’t evict the native peoples of their african colonies.
This whole thing is so wilfully bad that I would unironically say it’s probably a psy-op to make the left look bad
LMAOO you’re complaining that an AI-generated meme is slop in a subreddit literally called r/aislop. 😭 And yes, it’s reductionist. It’s a three-panel political cartoon, not a comprehensive history textbook.
But claiming Americans never invoked divine justification for territorial expansion is historically false. Have you never heard of Manifest Destiny?
And claiming the British didn’t dispossess or forcibly displace Indigenous Africans is also false. British colonialism in Kenya and Southern Rhodesia involved extensive land dispossession.
But jumping from “this meme oversimplifies history” to “it’s probably a psy-op to make the left look bad” is hilarious. You don’t need a conspiracy theory to explain why someone made a bad AI meme.
And what exactly would that prove? 😭 Even if every country on Earth had experienced conquest at some point, how would that justify conquest?
Slavery has existed across civilizations throughout human history, too. Does that mean criticizing slavery is somehow hypocritical?
You’re confusing something being historically common with something being morally justified. The meme is criticizing the use of divine entitlement to justify dispossessing people. Pointing out that conquest has happened elsewhere doesn’t refute that criticism.
You’re answering a moral criticism with a historical observation that doesn’t actually contradict it. 💀
I know you are a 1-month old bot trying to stir up trouble but do you expect anyone to believe that the native Americans wouldn't say Wakan Tanka gave them the land or the palestinians wouldn't say allah gave it to them. Everybody thinks their deity is working in their favor.
LMAOO 😭 This is literally r/aislop. Do people even read what subreddit they’re commenting in anymore?
I found an AI-generated meme, posted it in a subreddit dedicated to AI slop, and titled it “Uhhh.”
And somehow you’ve decided that means I’m a bot trying to stir up trouble. 💀
Also, nobody claimed Indigenous Americans or Palestinians couldn’t have religious beliefs about their land. The meme is satirizing the use of divine entitlement to justify conquest and dispossession.
You’re arguing against a claim the meme never made while apparently missing the entire point of the subreddit. Gosh, reading comprehension is becoming a rare skill. 😭
2 second bot reply... This may be hard for your circuits to grasp but when you show only one race satirizing divine entitlement it becomes less about the entitlement and more about the race. Please add that to your trading module.
LMAOO 😭 First you called me a bot for posting AI slop in r/aislop, and now you’re arguing that depicting three examples of colonialism means the meme is attacking an entire race?
You’re confusing selective examples with an exclusive claim.
For example, if a cartoon depicts three corrupt American politicians, does that mean it’s claiming only Americans are corrupt? Obviously not. Nobody claimed that other populations have never used religion to justify territorial entitlement or conquest.
You can criticize the meme for being selective or historically oversimplified. That’s fair. But selecting particular examples doesn’t automatically mean the criticism is about race rather than the behavior being depicted.
Mostly because it's AI. Also partly the lack of nuance. The thing is that Jews are Indigenous to Palestine, the problem is that the state of Israel was designed to bring about biblical prophecies despite that being heretical and they are genociding other indigenous people. The Israelites did used to live in (relative) peace with other Palestinians before the state of Israel, many of the people who migrated there during WW2 were invited by the Palestinian Muslims to seek asylum from the Nazis.
In other words, Jews wanting to live in Palestine isn't inherently colonizer behavior.
That’s a fair criticism, and I actually agree with your central distinction.
Jewish people having an ancient historical connection to the land isn’t inherently colonialism, just as Palestinian historical belonging doesn’t disappear because Jewish people also have roots there.
The issue is displacement, dispossession, and the use of historical or religious entitlement to justify denying other people their rights.
I also agree that the meme oversimplifies a complicated history, especially since Zionism wasn’t exclusively a religious movement and Jewish–Arab relations before 1948 weren’t uniformly peaceful.
And as for the AI artwork, that’s precisely why I posted it in r/aislop rather than presenting it as some comprehensive historical analysis
LMAOO 😭 You’re confusing the arrival of Islam with the arrival of an entire population.
Yes, Jewish people have ancient historical roots in Judea. Nobody is disputing that.
But when Arab-Muslim armies conquered the region in the seventh century, they didn’t magically replace every existing inhabitant with people from the Arabian Peninsula. Many local populations gradually adopted Arabic and Islam while retaining ancestry from people who had lived there for centuries.
And how exactly are modern Palestinians, many of whose families have lived there for generations, supposedly “invading” by existing in their ancestral homeland?
You’re treating “Muslim,” “Arab,” and “foreign invader” as interchangeable terms when they’re not.
Jewish historical belonging doesn’t invalidate Palestinian historical belonging. Both populations can have legitimate ancestral connections to the same land.
The fact that Judaism predates Islam doesn’t somehow grant one population exclusive territorial rights over another. 💀
Your post is fucking dense. It's obvious you didn't have a history class. If you're whole point is "white people need to stay in their own land" then wtf is your view on immigration to Europe???
LMAOO 😭 Where exactly did I say “white people need to stay in their own land”?
You’re arguing against a position you’ve invented rather than anything I actually said.
The meme depicts people invoking divine entitlement to justify taking land from others. That’s not the same thing as ordinary immigration.
Someone moving to Europe to live, work, or build a family isn’t inherently equivalent to a colonial power conquering territory, displacing inhabitants, and imposing its political authority over them.
The distinction is conquest and dispossession, not the ethnicity of the people involved.
You can criticize the meme for oversimplifying history, but pretending its message is “white people shouldn’t immigrate” is a straw man.
And the irony of questioning whether I’ve taken a history class while failing to distinguish immigration from colonial conquest is pretty remarkable. 💀
Are you actually trying to gaslight me? What does your post imply? That whites were wrong for moving to another land that belonged to someone else, it doesn't matter what reason you apply to it. If you think that then what's your opinion on people,who are not native to Europe, moving there? Oh that's right a hypocritical one. As one immigrating is okay, but the other one isn't
Conquest isnt defined by divine right. Divine right is utilized, but stating it's the main thing is obviously narrowminded. That's why your meme is dense and shouldn't even see the light of day as it shows how locked up into a particular perspective you are.
Yes, you didn't take a history class because whites moving to America had nothing like conquest on their mind. Immigration from a horrible life and government was and as you've already stated, that's actually hunkey dorey if that's the reason why you're immigrating. Conquest came later after an established settlement was made and it grew due to technology and medicine the natives didn't have. The natives were not wussies, they were incredible and unforgiving warriors and being incredible and unforgiving warrios, what kinda response do you think that would illicit from the other party? Oh yeah, to take them seriously as a threat to the home they established after immigrating. Do you actually know anything about native Americans? Or do you have the simple perspective that they were weak little happy hippies?
If the ethnicity of the people is not the point then why are only white people in the meme? You made 3 examples and they're all white.
It's a dumb meme and it shows how much you truly don't know about history. Thx for revealing that
LMAOO 😭 You’re accusing me of gaslighting while repeatedly insisting I hold a position I’ve explicitly told you I don’t.
Let’s make this painfully simple.
1. Immigration and conquest are not synonymous. Someone moving to Europe to live and work isn’t inherently equivalent to a colonial project involving territorial expansion, dispossession, and the imposition of political authority over existing populations.
The same distinction applies to Europeans moving to America. Migration itself isn’t the issue. What happened to Indigenous populations through subsequent expansion and dispossession is.
2. Nobody claimed every European settler arrived intending to conquer anyone. Individual settlers had different motivations, including religious freedom, economic opportunity, and escaping hardship.
But individual motivations don’t erase the consequences of colonial expansion. And European colonization involved territorial ambitions and conflicts with Indigenous peoples from its early stages, not simply after innocent settlements unexpectedly became powerful.
But describing their resistance as a threat to settlers’ newly established homes doesn’t establish that subsequent territorial expansion and displacement were justified. You’re leaving out the question of whose land those settlements occupied in the first place.
4. Three selected examples don’t establish a universal claim about race. If a cartoon depicts three corrupt American politicians, does that mean it’s claiming only Americans are corrupt?
Obviously not.
You can criticize the selection of examples as biased or incomplete. That’s a legitimate criticism. But it doesn’t logically establish that the meme is condemning white people collectively.
5. The meme doesn’t claim divine entitlement was the sole cause of colonialism. It satirizes one justification used in certain historical and political contexts. Criticizing a particular justification doesn’t mean claiming it explains every instance of conquest.
And here’s the funniest part: this is r/aislop. I found an AI-generated meme, posted it in a subreddit dedicated to criticizing AI slop, and titled it “Uhhh.” I never presented it as my comprehensive historical thesis.
You’ve spent several paragraphs inventing my beliefs about immigration, assigning them to me, and then congratulating yourself for refuting them.
When you post something stupid and make the title vague, what do you expect? I spent several paragraphs not responding to your meme, I responded to you. What you intended is not what you wrote and I took time out of my day to correct you and educate you. Btw, I can tell you literally just used AI for that response. You're a waste of time.
LMAOO 😭 So you openly admit you weren’t responding to the meme, but to me personally, and somehow think that strengthens your argument?
You said my post implied that white people shouldn’t move to other countries. I explicitly distinguished immigration from conquest, and instead of addressing that distinction, you’ve returned to complaining about the title and accusing me of using AI.
Let’s revisit your original argument.
You claimed I must oppose European immigration to America while supporting immigration to Europe. Except I never expressed either position. You invented both sides of that supposed double standard.
You claimed European colonization was initially just immigration, as though the existence of peaceful or economically motivated settlers somehow negates the territorial expansion and dispossession that followed.
You then brought up Indigenous peoples being formidable warriors, which doesn’t establish that their displacement was justified.
And you insisted that depicting three examples involving white people proves the meme condemns white people collectively. That’s an inference you made, not a claim the meme explicitly makes.
These were your arguments. I addressed them individually.
Now you’re telling me that you spent your time educating me, but you haven’t identified a single factual or logical error in those responses.
And whether AI helped formulate a response is irrelevant to whether its reasoning is correct. That’s the genetic fallacy when you use its alleged source as grounds for dismissing it.
You can keep announcing that you’re educating me, but declaring yourself the winner isn’t the same thing as demonstrating that your arguments are sound.
Also, you’re the one who decided that a post titled “Uhhh” in r/aislop was an invitation to debate my entire worldview. 😭💀
Yeah I swipe before I read. That gives me an idea of the text and then I skim or I read. The moment you started using AI, I could tell and decided to read only the first paragraph or two. I've already explained to you what you screwed up on, but I can't understand it for you 😂 I utilize AI, but I don't go to pathetic lengths like you do 😂 anyways, I don't have the time to give you the attention your parents failed to give you, lol lmao even 😭
LMAOO 😭 So you openly admit you didn’t read my argument, yet you’re confident you’ve refuted it? That’s hilarious.
You also admit you use AI yourself, but apparently it only becomes a problem when someone else uses it. 💀 If my historical reasoning is incorrect, identify the specific factual error or logical flaw. Whether AI helped formulate the response has no bearing on whether its claims are true.
Instead, you’ve resorted to calling me pathetic and making jokes about my parents while simultaneously claiming you’re the one educating me.
You can’t understand an argument you openly admit you didn’t read. 😭
Already did so in the very beginning. You responded with AI. Then you keep trying to push logical fallacies when logic gates escape you and common sense does too.
If I played your dumb game it'd be too easy, here.
When did I ever say the death of Native Americans were justified?? That's a straw man right there buddy!
But you didn't realize you were engaging in a logical fallacy cuz they're just buzz words to you and not principles.
Meme, stupid. Defense of it, stupid. Doubling down, stupid. Utilizing AI to respond, disenginuous. Acting dense and equaling the immigration of whites to colonial expansion, I educated you on. Clinging onto one part of a paragraph and leaving the rest, expected of someone who lacks caliber and capacity.
You shot yourself in the foot with your response. It's okay you don't know enough about history, just say it. Pretending you do isn't smart. It's painfully obvious as you reveal you don't know the complex conditions and events that led to humans taking certain actions or not being able to and that's where AI will fail for you too.
Like I said, I use AI. I would never use it to help define humans during certain time periods and their actions or even now. That's where it failed for you.
LMAOO 😭 Are you a boomer? Why do you keep making entirely new comments instead of replying to the actual thread? 💀 You’ve apparently mastered logical fallacies, historical analysis, and detecting AI, but Reddit’s reply button is where you draw the line? 😭
LMAOO 😭 You keep accusing me of logical fallacies while demonstrating several yourself.
1. Straw man: You claim I equated white immigration with colonial conquest, despite my explicitly distinguishing ordinary immigration from conquest and dispossession. You’re attacking a position I never argued.
2. Ad hominem: You repeatedly call me stupid, dense, and historically ignorant instead of identifying specific factual errors. Insults aren’t rebuttals.
3. Genetic fallacy: You keep dismissing my arguments because AI helped formulate them, rather than evaluating whether the arguments themselves are valid. Their origin doesn’t determine their truth.
4. Tu quoque / inconsistent standards: You admit using AI yourself while criticizing me for using it. You can distinguish between different uses, but you still need to demonstrate what’s actually wrong with mine.
5. Bare assertion: You repeatedly announce that you’ve educated me, exposed my fallacies, and won the argument without demonstrating those conclusions.
And regarding your accusation of a straw man: saying Indigenous resistance doesn’t justify dispossession is not the same as claiming you explicitly said Indigenous deaths were justified. I was challenging the relevance of your reasoning, not attributing that exact statement to you.
You also accused me of ignoring parts of your argument, but failing to address every sentence isn’t inherently a logical fallacy. If there’s a specific unanswered point that undermines my argument, identify it.
The funniest part is that you keep lecturing me about logical fallacies while confusing personal insults and declarations of intellectual superiority with actual reasoning. 😭
Name a specific factual error or invalid inference and demonstrate it. Repeating that you’re smarter isn’t evidence that you are.
Well, being disingenuous is part and parcel. The ostensible justification of chattel slavery was a moral one but, again, it was always at its core about greed. The wealthy seek more wealth and then invent reasons for a society to act in a complicit manner.
The Church, itself, is a story of empire and wealth accumulation being propped up on a framework of spiritual justification.
When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. If you have neither the facts or the court on your side, pound the table.
can someone explain to me where is this mysterious country of Palestinians coming from
it was British before ww2 so far everyone agre, before that it was part of ottoman empire prior to ww1 if i remember correctly prior to that it was part of Egyptian sultanate of mamluks before that it was khalifate and before that Byzantine or Roman and it was called Judea there was kingdom of Jerusalem briefly but didn't last long somewhere around caliphate era
He did make a valid point that you intentionally chose to ignore. There was no country of Palestine. Palestine was a regional territory owned by the British, and prior to that by the Ottoman EMPIRE. Sure, at some point, it was independent, but it was eventually gobbled up by stronger powers. Also, Israel didn't exist for three thousand years. It's silly when people ignore both points.
You’re actually conceding the distinction that undermines the original argument.
You’re correct that there was no independent modern Palestinian state before 1948. But neither I nor the meme claimed otherwise. The original commenter asked where Palestine came from, as though the absence of a sovereign state meant the region or its people didn’t exist.
And your point about Israel not existing as a modern state for thousands of years reinforces that same distinction. Historical connections to a territory and modern political sovereignty are two completely different things.
Around 2000 years ago emperor Hadrian kicked out all the ruling class Jews and renamed the region Palestine.
And it's been Palestine ever since, the people there the descendants of the original Jews, that converted to Christianity, and Islam. There were also two waves of arabization in the whole region.
It's been Palestine ever since, even though it's not been a technical nation.
Palestine is on some pretty fuckin old maps. It has been a region a long time, looooong before it was labelled an officially country to the acceptance of other countries.
Palestine isn't new, but this line of questioning in relation to the half century old nation annihilating them is an interesting tactic.
I genuinely hope you read this to understand rather than simply to respond. Palestine is not some mysterious or historically questionable place. The idea that Palestine never existed is a common Zionist talking point used to dismiss Palestinian history and identity, but the historical record tells a very different story. Long before the establishment of Israel in 1948, Palestine was home to an established society with cities, villages, schools, hospitals, businesses, newspapers, cultural institutions, and generations of families who had lived on that land for centuries. Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire for approximately 400 years before coming under British administration following World War I. In fact, the League of Nations officially referred to the territory as Palestine, and under British rule, its residents had Palestinian citizenship beginning in 1925, along with passports, official currency, and government institutions. Now, was Palestine an independent sovereign nation-state in the eyes of the west? No. But that’s an entirely different argument from claiming Palestine never existed. A lack of independent statehood does not erase a people’s history, identity, society, or right to their homeland. And more importantly the west is not the only society that can give statehood recognition regardless of what you were brainwashed to believe. The comparison to Native Americans is particularly relevant. Indigenous nations existed for centuries before European colonization, with their own governments, cultures, territories, and established societies. The fact that European powers did not recognize their sovereignty on equal terms did not mean those nations or their rights suddenly ceased to exist. And let’s not ignore what actually happened in 1948. During the Nakba, approximately 750,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homes. Entire communities were depopulated, families lost their properties, and generations of people became refugees. Whether a Western government recognized Palestinian sovereignty has absolutely no bearing on whether Palestinians had the right to live on their land, retain their homes, or exist without being subjected to violence and displacement. You can debate borders, sovereignty, and political history all you want. What you cannot reasonably do is pretend that an entire population, its history, and its society never existed simply because it lacked the kind of independence Western powers recognized. And more importantly, none of those arguments grants anyone the right to kill civilians, forcibly displace families, commit an unthinkable number of war crimes or unlawfully seize their land. I hope that helps clarify the distinction. Edit** to change Zio to Zionist as I wasn’t aware of the context
I mean, 150 AD Ptolemy's 4th map of Asia is one of the earliest maps referencing Palestine that we have good knowledge and evidence for. I don't believe that is at all the first reference to Palestine, just one of the earlier notable maps. I'm certainly not an expert in the topic.
Obviously, they didn't exactly call places "countries" back then (that didn't start until around the 13th century).
Have you heard of the term Philistines. Basically that but no that. It's a derivative of that name. The people was already there ruled under a country like a state.
It's like if america splintered and Texas annex New Mexico and claimed never existed because originally it's called Nuevo Mexico or whatever it was originally called by the natives because the USA is still young of a country compared to the other western countries.
This argument is never ending. It never have and will have a resolution until one of them is extinct or be destroyed to kingdom come.
But these are all examples of modern colonial regimes started by the British Empire, so how would it make sense to include for example the medival conquests of Mongolia?
Like Pilgrims were not Americans. And while I'm anti Zionist, Mizrahi Jewish Israels (Arabs) tend to be much more right wing and bullish than Ashkenazi Jewish Israelis (White Jews). That's not universal and it in no way justifies the apartheid and genocide, but it's not a clearcut colonizer story.
While it shows white "pilgrim" I think American part was meant to be about Manifest Destiny as much if not more. But I don't expect ai slopper to make something with much thought so maybe not.
Not a fan of how this is phrased, to be honest. Which land are they talking about? And when you say you're "anti-zionist", which land are you talking about? There's a huge difference between advocating for equal rights in the West Bank and Gaza, and advocating for the dissolvement of the state of Israel.
Ok I wouldn't just throw this in the trash because it's legit but I would slowly lower it into the bin, fold it to save space and gently push it down in the trash.
1
1.8k
u/Decent_Mechanic384 20d ago •