I don't have any land though, can I help them take my landlord's instead
Just as a reminder fellow settler comrades, if you're uninformed about the topic you should probably shut the fuck up! :commiku:
:very-intelligent: ah but what is the definition of the term "land" and the term "back"?
Holy shit you're literally pulling "definition of is". Words have meanings. "Give the land back" means exactly that, I really don't see where there's room for interpretation.
This doesn't necessarily apply to colonization. In general, if you're uninformed about a topic you just... shouldn't have a fucking opinion about it? It's not hard to just shut the fuck up about something, it literally takes zero effort to just shut the fuck up about shit you don't know about
Can I pay for it with my life instead
Indegenous peoples take what little energies my battered soul has left and oust the colonizers
You can but it's still gotta be attached to your body so you can shield them from cops properly
Yeah, let's just forcibly move ~200 million people to another continent. I'm sure that will go well.
Also, a Native American ethnostate is still an ethnostate.
:side-eye-1: bruh indigenous people don't want to ship the mayos off "back-to-africa" style, but damn well deserve to govern their lands (even just the unseded treaty land that :amerikkka: illegally occipes, if you are really so afraid of white genocide)
That's hardly "giving it back" then. No shit they should be given heavy reparations and self determination, but telling an individual to "give it back" is just dumb.
Like the comment below about the person's dad who immigrated to escape the Holocaust. She doesn't have to get that through to him because there's nothing that he personally needs to give back.
yea individual action is :haram: pretty pointless when it comes to Land Back, especially with the feds continuing to entrap lands that individuals have tried to return to indigenous communities.
Yeah it seems best taken as an abstract moral injunction that should be enacted through something like collectivization/redistribution of private property or more realistically just wealth/income, with a focus on giving disproportionately to the indigenous. Giving someone a fake ownership of "land" without displacing hundreds of millions (which is btw a comforting fantasy), instead of the means of production or money, seems less helpful. Sure they should have total control of the concentration camps the US put them in, that's hardly 'giving them back their land,' the slogan becomes totally meaningless then. Better and more achievable to give them the greater part of the means of production. Would love to hear criticism
Tldr: 'Land back' seems billed as righting the wrongs done to indigenous peoples by giving them their land back. And if it ends up being white liberals giving an extremely poor set of the population some undeveloped, barren plot of federal land, then it is mere appeasement, not for indigenous but for the liberals.
Basically every struggle currently existing in the world has taken some form of socialism as it's solution. No one wants to go back to primitive tribal life or destroy all technology. They want equitable and just living. They want the end to colonial and imperial oppression.
They want fucking communism, same as us.
National self-determination doesn't exist in socialism, nations are abolished, the point of is abolishing the concept of "governing" which in the modern era meant "mediating the contradictions of capital and establishing the will of the ruling class", rather than establishing new governing structures that are more "democratic" or "representative", the problem is to do away with the need to mediate class contradictions not reforming the process by which these are mediated, by achieving the destruction of wage labor. such thing as "self-governance" is actively not socialism.
Rather than pushing for universal gains for the working class, including the indigenous working class, you are simply delivering them to unfettered exploitation under a ruling class of their ethnic peers
National self-determination doesn’t exist in socialism, nations are abolished
idk about that
What do you mean? I'm going to assume no socialists want ethnostates in the future. That means no Israel but also no Palestine.
Socialism has been paired with national self-determination and decolonization movements in much of the third world since after WW2.
Yea that's why I said in the future. If we stick to a national self determination model then how do we solve problems between nations? Or the tendency for Nations to blame other nations for problems that capitalism creates(any war between two formerly colonial countries)? Or stop Nations from killing their own (Pakistan's civil war in 1971)?
Bangladesh's national liberation was lead by huge numbers of socialists but now the country is dominated by their own right wing.
Also the US and Canada aren't the third world. They're at the heart of the empire.
National self-determination doesn’t exist in socialism
we don't currently live under socialism
gib the land back, US gubmint
Same argument applies, your "liberation indigenous people" amounts to delivering indigenous working class to capitalists of their own race, what do the working class care about the race of their opresor? the point is to abolish the means by which indigenous workers are opresed, not give them a better more democratic opresor
:yes-comm:
i don't think anyone is rooting for the class system to survive the revolution, least of all indigenous peoples who have been forced into accordance with said capitalist patriarchal framework.
Land Back
You are spouting empty slogans without really analyzing their content, sure indigenous workers probably don't, but that's the thing a government structure is a way of controlling the national capital, and managing a class system. Tell me how you pretend to destroy capitalism and also form a structure that only exists to manage capitalist production at the same time?
Thus begins the struggle session over a funny laughter image on chapo.chat
c/memes is where high quality ideas wage battle, donchaknow
Well, funny laughter images still contain beliefs, assumptions, and ideology. These are things which must always be open to critique.
We shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that "it's just a joke" automatically shields an opinion from criticism.
Ypu dont understand. I put their opinion ad the soyjack and me as the chad wojak. Therefore I win.
I'm sure you already have an incredible and not at all flawed understanding of Land Back, but might I suggest reading into it some more before making harebrained accusations like calling Indigenous national liberation "ethnostates" and implying the dissolution of settler-colonial states will force settlers out in some reverse-racism/white genocide/great replacement style thinking
Here's a handy resource: https://redpaper.yellowheadinstitute.org/
"Read this 68 page essay or all your thoughts are wrong."
Wanna at least sum it up? What does "land back" mean if not literally giving the land back by moving out?
"I'm not going to bother learning about what this thing is but still have a reactionary opinion on it"
As a Pro-Tip, the website has summaries of each of the parts, but be warned it's a Canadian context. Anyways to do your thinking for you, it's a really complex topic because Indigenous peoples are not a monolith but a general understanding is literally give them the land back from the government that wrongfully stole it and allow them sovereignty over their land/respect their treaty obligations/etc. This does not mean "whitey out" because that isn't feasible and as far as I've seen precisely zero are calling for that.
a general understanding is literally give them the land back from the government that wrongfully stole it and allow them sovereignty over their land
That's literally all the land in the country, 100% of it is stolen. It's impossible to give it all back. And land that white people are still living on is hardly land that's been "given back".
This meme also implies personal responsibility, you have to give the land you live on back. I'm living in a house built on stolen land, the only way for me to give that land back is for me to leave. Anything less isn't "giving the land back".
"Give the land back" is as nuanced as "abolish the police" (ie, not at all). Don't say it unless you mean what it literally means. When we say abolish the police we literally mean abolish the police, not "here's a 70 page essay about how we can reform policing".
Oh cool I didn't know we just flip the big switch labeled "THE POLICE" to OFF and that there is no nuance or details or theoretical underpinnings or anything
This is a meme not a fucking foundational text on how land back should work, who fucking cares if it implies personal responsibility? Having control over the land is getting it back, kinda like how controlling the means of production doesn't mean you have to put them in your pocket and take them with you everywhere.
Oh cool I didn’t know we just flip the big switch labeled “THE POLICE” to OFF and that there is no nuance or details or theoretical underpinnings or anything
:yes-chad:
I read the summaries so I'll ask you a few questions to see if its worth reading the full version if it touches on any of the following.
- How much support do the writers of the paper/Yellowhead have within Canada's indigenous communities? Is this a majority opinion? Are they also trying to win over other indigenous people with this paper or is that portion of their struggle over and now they're a united front?
- The summaries seem to say that the writers of the paper want recognition of their own laws, knowledge systems, epistemics, etc. Do they want this within Canada or to secede from Canada?
- Whether it's within Canada or after breaking away from Canada, do they want to build a modern capitalist economy rooted in traditional native principles (I.e. Greater/special emphasis on species conservation, greater/special emphasis on no/low resource extraction, etc) or do they want a return to pre-contact ways of living? I ask this because I want to understand how they plan to defend themselves in case of future wars or invasions by Canada. If they can't build an industrial economy then they're counting on settler Canadians to not do the thing they've been doing: just taking it by force.
- Would there be independent indigenous self governments/ organizations on each piece of unceded treaty land or would they link up into one larger "native state".
- How would they prevent the rise of a right wing (and eventually far right) which has happened in pretty much every country that has organized around a racial (ex. Israel, and others), cultural/ religious identity (ex. Pakistan and others)?
-
The Yellowhead Institute is a relatively new research institute so I'm not sure if there's any sort of popular opinion about it even among Indigenous groups. It's lead by Indigenous researchers focused on colonization and its effects, with this paper specifically studying historical examples of relations between Canada and Indigenous peoples. The paper has case studies for how Indigenous nations can assert their land rights, and the ignoring of land rights by the Canadian government is a near universal issue when it comes to Indigenous nations whether they support land back or not.
-
They want interactions between the Canadian state and Indigenous nations as real inter-national relations where law and governance are respected, but what that relationship looks like, whether that involves secession, federation within Canada or something else depends on the particular nation.
-
The economics of post-land back First Nations is highly speculative. Indigenous law is different to ours, which would definitely influence the way their production is organized, but it's likely they would still absorb some concepts from colonial systems. There is a trend of wanting to return to more traditional lifestyles, but not in an anarcho-primitivist sense, more of a merging of modern technologies and traditional ways of living to be more harmonious with the natural world. Whether this will recreate capitalism is yet to be seen. Regarding the defence against Canada, we already have examples of this. Every time an Indigenous group protests encroachment by Canada, they're beset by police and settlers and have engaged in different strategies to combat it, like the economic blockades we saw in 2019 or actual armed resistance like at Oka.
-
Each nation is usually governed by multiple tribes, but in terms of a larger union of nations I do not know. It would make sense to me economically and politically to do so, but it's not up to me.
-
Currently there is already a right wing (at least functionally) in the form of the settler created band councils that allow complicity with exploitation by the Canadian state. IMO any reactionary formations in a land back scenario would likely recreate this and it would need to be resisted by communists and anarchists the same as everywhere else.
-
"I'm not going to educate myself on colonialism because I can't be bothered to read" what the fuck kind of communist are you?
Sorry I don't have the attention span to read 68 fuckin pages. ADHD can be like that.
ok so first im stupd & also litrly a bird covrrd in shit so som1 smrtr shuld chime in. bt think abt how indigenous ppl curently liv in this settler state & then flip it. its their land & we al jus living here.
Flipping unjust power structures just preserves the existence of unjust power structures. But still, that's hardly "land back" if 200 million colonizers are still living on that land.
tryin 2 keep it simpl bt returnin a stoln thing is bar minimum its unjust bcz the land is stoln idk u askd 4 a sumry & ive red som abt it so :shrug-outta-hecks:
Yeah, let’s just forcibly move ~200 million people to another continent. I’m sure that will go well.
Crackers aren't people.
All this meme says is "give the land back" if you aren't a landowner, this isn't about you. The US government is illegitimate and if a revolutionary state is ever formed, it must have indigenous character to it.
That being said, I don't think mass deportations of people who've lived here for generations is something that's actually seriously considered, that's a lot of lost labor power that you'd need to rebuild this broken shithole country into something good.
awesome, how do you feel about the state of Israel btw?
Much more recent and much less people. It's way more feasible to move <10 million people that only moved in 70 years ago vs ~200 million that moved in centuries ago.
we inventd the segway & that ws complictd we can gib land bac even tho complctd
segway = thoudands of parts & science. Complicated invention.
land back = gib land back. messy bt ppl can do.
since we inventd segway we can giv land bac.
How do you get through to people like my dad who thinks because our family only immigrated to North America due to the Holocaust, that he shouldn't have to give the land back?
Legitimately don't think it will be possible. It's a material interests thing. There's no way you could ever convince even a sizable fraction of the tens of millions of people who own land in the United States to give it back, no matter how just the reasons.
Persecution does not give your dad the right to steal other people's land, it is a fundamental reality at the core of all settler states is based on the theft of others' land. He probably won't care, but it's still true
I keep seeing people saying this but no one is saying what they would do this persons dad if they had power. He's not leaving on his own, so what are you going to do?
He's getting put into a cannon and launched into a tiny cup of water
Let me read Settlers and Night-Vision and I'll come back with a take on this, shit's hard to reason about.
first time ive seen som1 talk about night-vision. is it any good?
I'm not sure, I'm really still at the start of both. That said, I read the preface to Night-Vision, and my impression is that they're probably right about needing to decouple hope for progress from the old divisions. In a world where BLM protestors are getting tear-gassed by female cops, black cops, and LGBT cops all at once, it becomes clear that building a movement off of race or gender or sex or nationality alone has no chance of impacting much. It's always been about class and the parasitism of Capitalists. We can't reduce everything to class, but class transcends all of our individual group identities and the neo-colonial exploitation knows no group identities itself.
