Comment by ButlerianJihad
3 hours ago
Students of history will note that governments throughout history have sought to disposess and expel (not merely deport) groups who were proven to present a destabilizing or rebellious influence against national security and the domestic tranquility. Although there was surely contemporary outrage, there has often been ample popular support and a lack of regret for the expulsions. Because often, that was a concrete step towards restoring peace and order to a nation. This process was often a last resort, or a penultimate solution, if you will, after attempting to persuade, convert, and pacify those groups domestically. What nation or city would willingly decimate its population if those citizens could be made productive and loyal instead?
This may no longer be a wise or viable strategy, and it is certainly a good way for most people to get ridiculed and demonetized when they even suggest that such a thing may be possible, and it is surely frowned-upon at the highest international and diplomatic levels. But again, as a student of history, it has been an actual process that did happen, and had lasting effects, and it was repeatedly employed, so surely there must have been some rationale or benefit to the process, rather than pure evil or malevolence, whether it happened 736 or 87 years ago.
Students of history will also note that people routinely used lead as a cosmetic, brutalized and treated women as chattel (and some still do so today), tortured, murdered and enslaved whole populations and all manner of other atrocious stuff.
By your argument, those things are perfectly fine, yes? If not, why is forced denaturalization/deportation perfectly reasonable because it has been done in the past, but those other things are not?
Please do elucidate. I'm sure we'd all like to hear your arguments.