This is something I've wondered about but never really seen an official leftist position on, and it's gotten a lot more relevant with the ongoing Palestinian uprising. Also curious if there is any good reading out there on this subject.
This is something I've wondered about but never really seen an official leftist position on, and it's gotten a lot more relevant with the ongoing Palestinian uprising. Also curious if there is any good reading out there on this subject.
Idk if I'd necessarily describe that as "self-deportation". The accumulated resentment of the native peoples made living as a white person in South Africa increasingly difficult, especially without a large militant police force to shield civilians from backlash and whip recalcitrant locals into line.
The plantation owner cannot simply role up his sleeves and take to the fields without fear of reprisal from the folks he spent a lifetime flogging. No civilization can be subjected to a century of humiliation and just let it roll of their backs. Especially when the last years of a failing regime are often the most reckless and brutal.
the point being the state didn't have to deport them, not that there was no real impetus pushing them to leave. Loss of privileged status, and being reviled, or even chased out by the locals both can play a role, but it isn't really a problem that you have to mobilize state power to fix.
Not everything has to be a state policy.
At some level, reconciliation is a function of the state. People need healthy productive outlets for their enthusiasm after a colonial government fails. Otherwise, it all descends into tug of war over increasingly scarce resources.
China handled this well, in the wake of the civil war. Cuba did, too. Haiti didn't. France didn't. And here we are.
Yeah. I agree, state policy probably needs to assist reconciliation. But they don't need to decide the ultimate fate/living arrangements of settlers, and they don't need to attempt to deport them all.
There wasn't any systematic deportations as far as I know, so I don't see how else to categorize it. I understand what you mean about social pressures leading to them leaving, but ultimately leaving is an individual decision without a central mandate. Like with Cuban land reforms, the gusanos left because they lost economic privilege, there was no order to deport them and some still stayed and integrated into the new Cuban society. I'm saying all this to support that decolonization doesn't mean "whitey go home", but some whiteys will go home anyway.
That's horseshit. Might as well tell the folks in Greensboro or Tulsa as much.
A much better example, but it can't be understated what the backlash looked like immediately after the Revolution. And then again, following the Bay of Pigs fuckup. People were angry and rightfully so. You didn't need a government policy to organize a lynch mob or freeze out untouchables.
Accumulated trauma among locals can make peaceful coexistence impossible, at least in the short term.
Just to be clear, I'm talking entirely in the context of decolonization. POC leaving under a white supremacist settler state is different due to the state having an interest in them being displaced. Palestinians may make "individual choices" to leave under the Israeli state, but that's the goal of Israel and its various state apparatuses which ultimately makes it systematic.
And yes, I agree social tensions don't evaporate overnight and are inevitably the cause of violence in a new society.
The Palestinian state has a real interest in removing settlers from disputed territory. And practically every inch of Israel is in some kind of dispute. The negotiated territory lines were all compromises made while Palestine was in a weakened state.
Even then, all of this is functionally a moot point, given that the Israeli response appears to be going full Korean War on the Gaza Strip. If the rest of the Middle Eastern states stand back and let this happen, its going to be a full blown genocide on national television.