Why does the concept of "ancestral property" somehow suddenly make violence acceptable to you. If the bank or government forecloses on my mother's house, I can shoot whoever comes to take ownership?
That's clearly not a relevant analogy.
Why does the concept of "ancestral property" somehow suddenly make violence acceptable to you.
Look, it was the person above me who was saying, basically, that it was the miners' violence against the tribespeople that was "acceptable" (paraphrasing, but that's what they basically said). So perhaps you should take up this line of discussion with them, instead.
All I'm saying is - if you knowingly invade territory known to be inhabited by an "uncontacted" community -- that is to say: by definition, a fully sovereign community, and not bound by any treaties with your own government -- and you don't expect the same kind of response (i.e. violent) any self-respecting community would make when not just their land, but their very survival comes under direct attack -- then at the very least, you're pretty damn naive.
And on top of that, it becomes really, really hard to see why you might deserve any sympathy.
Typically the person considered to be at fault is the initiator of violence.
That's fine if they want to attack anyone they perceive as being intruders. But once they do, retaliation is fair game as well. Live by the sword, die by the sword, and all that.
You're dodging the central issue: that it was the miners' act of trespass that, in itself, constituted the "initiation of violence" in this case.
But once they do, retaliation is fair game as well.
Sorry, but there's a very clear moral gradient at play here. It seems like you're trying to suggest there's at least some rough equivalence between the actions of the two parties. But if so, then I just don't buy that argument, at all.