• DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 days ago

    Source? And is it notably different than from, for example, the land the US government “left” for native Americans? Deliberately too small and unproductive to support the population’s needs?

    • Nexy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      20 days ago

      Well, in from Argentina and I can say a good and wealthy part of the capital was left for jews in the time, and other parts of o country, and I know some others countries did the same, but that wasn’t well accepted by the time. Still we have some tiny communities in that zones from that time.

    • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      20 days ago

      Varied by country, the Jewish Oblast was kinda shit, but the land in Alaska had potential for example. The Alaska thing wasnt official just an idea a lot of folks were lightly okay with.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        20 days ago

        A Jewish reservation. In Alaska.

        Bro…

        Know any other groups of people who might need reservations in Alaska? Know any of them who actually have their rights respected?

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          20 days ago

          There was also ones proposed in Uganda, southern Argentina, Madagascar, and Tasmania. Though I will note that last one is a bit scarce and I only know of it due to an obscure book from the 1890s.

          • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            20 days ago

            The Madagascar plan was the Nazis and explicitly designed to starve them all to death. I assume the Tasmanian idea is similar in goal. “Hey, this area will technically fit them all, we don’t need to check how much of the land is arable ;)”

            I don’t think you could create a sovereign space for a couple million refugees in either Uganda Argentina but feel free to correct me.

            • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              20 days ago

              I think the Tasmania thing was a throw shit at the wall thing. But you could definitely keep a strong population in southern Argentina, that part of Patagonia is pretty fertile.