Now, when you (whoever wrote the title) say settlers, do you mean occupiers, or actual settlers? It seems people forget basic facts when talking about these particular nations.
You can’t force people from their homes, move in, and call yourself a settler. You’re an occupier from a hostile nation, or an annexer, if you like that term better.
If you find some unclaimed land or are invited in by the locals, then you’re a settler.
One can make the argument that you’re just being literal, but at that point - as a journalist who should be using the most clear and communicative language, you’re just trying to frame something bad under a different light, which speaks volumes about you and your agenda.
If you wanna be pedantic, then occupier is an even worse choice than settler. Occupation is often temporary while settling is permanent so occupation is not the right word here. Annexer, colonizer, land thief or terrorist are better imo.
Now, when you (whoever wrote the title) say settlers, do you mean occupiers, or actual settlers? It seems people forget basic facts when talking about these particular nations.
You can’t force people from their homes, move in, and call yourself a settler. You’re an occupier from a hostile nation, or an annexer, if you like that term better.
If you find some unclaimed land or are invited in by the locals, then you’re a settler.
One can make the argument that you’re just being literal, but at that point - as a journalist who should be using the most clear and communicative language, you’re just trying to frame something bad under a different light, which speaks volumes about you and your agenda.
If you wanna be pedantic, then occupier is an even worse choice than settler. Occupation is often temporary while settling is permanent so occupation is not the right word here. Annexer, colonizer, land thief or terrorist are better imo.