"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
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.
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:
"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.
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.
:yes-chad:
nooooo gona pull aprt a meme cuz it trigers me nooo
abolish the police & give land back
@Shitbird, please stop replying to me.
srry didnt see usrnam & thought it was dif white guy. wil stop.
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.
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:
Holy shit stop talking like that, I can barely understand it.
no ths iz jst me & im drnk
dawg dont do dis