Before you all go dogpile on the guy, I believe the context here is that there have been past instances where land was returned to indigenous people only for it to get sold to private interests. Also, the org that is behind the Landback manifesto is sketchy. As in like Jeff Bezos literally funds them.
The exact specifics always depends on the material conditions and the needs of the colonized people the land is being returned to, but I think you've got the general gist of it down. When we talk about "self determination" regarding land back a lot of people tend to think about it abstractly, but land back is the physical material necessity for self determination. The same way that workers need to own the means of production, Indigenous peoples needs to own their land.
Yeah. It seems both sides of the landback debate are pro land reform actually. I guess where the disagreement here is is that peter coffin et al. are against supporting the present movements surrounding it before socialists have taken power?
It's more incoherent than that because a lot of people like Peter Coffin will openly support other colonized people like the Palestinians and black South Africans while it's the same system of oppression as in North America. It's just a mix of paternalism and settler guilt complex.
All that said, if you want my pie-in-the sky idea as to what to do if I somehow became the American , I think you should give them Oregon, and as many guns, tanks, planes & ☢️ as they think they need to keep private re-settlers & the US state from fucking with them. Plus like a $500-Billy development package, and let them to as they will with all that
that's more or less what Ulysses Grant tried to do the problem was that once gold was found on their land the government couldn't stop the settlers and when the natives killed the settlers it put public support for war to such a level that the government was essentially strong armed into it.
basically that might not actually be within the capabilities of the US government to do even if they were willing to do it
Ehh Indigenous people are almost always under counted in population stats, not to mention there's racist shit like blood quantum rules that exist to specifically limit the size of Indigenous populations. And besides that it's not like all FNs are asking for complete autonomy with a "settlers go home" demand. That's why returning the land needs to be paired with decolonization, if there's one thing I can generalize about Indigenous people is that they want to co-operate with the people here, but our systems create oppression that prevents it.
I took some time to dig into this debate a bit more, and I think what Peter Coffin and others are saying is pretty clear. This is what happens when "land back" occurs under capitalism and it is why capitalists are funding the current "land back" movement: https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/senakw-squamish-first-nation-vancouver-rental-housing-development
Squamish First Nation members overwhelmingly voted to approve the massive development on their 12-acre Kitsilano reserve in late 2019. Thus allowing band leaders to seal the partnership with local developer Westbank and continue their work with refining the design concept.
Between $16 billion and $20 billion will be generated from the rental income of Senakw throughout the entire lifespan of its buildings, with the First Nation receiving half of this income under its 50-50 partnership with Westbank. In 2019, the construction cost of the project was estimated to be $3 billion.
The people who are against "land back" are against it not because of "paternalism and settler guilt complex" but because giving land back right now would ultimately end up serving capitalist interests
You're kinda proving my point about paternalism here.
Why should settlers get to dictate how the land is used? Should Israelis get to dictate how Palestinians use their land if/when it's returned? Should we as "leftists" be against Palestinians getting their land back because they might not be socialist?
If we look at Canada, this conditional right to land has always been the status quo. Recent conflicts like Wet'suwet'en blockades, the standoffs at Six Nations, Standing Rock, and the Baffinland blockades all occur because the government says that First Nations have a right to their land, but when they assert that right in opposition to capital, the state takes off its mask and brutalizes people who're asserting what's supposed to be their rights as distinct nations enshrined through treaties with the Canadian government. But when we see the state and First Nations getting along like in the example you brought up, we usually find it to be the band councils, which are Western style governance systems created through the Indian Act in Canada. As we should always keep in mind, Indigenous peoples, even those in the same First Nation, are not a monolith and so opposition can form between traditional and colonial systems of government. And even then we should understand the economic reasoning why both band and traditional leadership might support certain capital friendly decisions: the Canadian government has forced poverty on Indigenous people for centuries.
Remember, the contradictions at the heart of any society are dialectically linked and economism will not solve them all.
I think you may be making some false assumptions here so I'd like to make it clear that nowhere in my comment did I condemn them for their decision or purport to know what is better for them.
As far as I can tell, nobody is arguing that Indigenous people must first be socialist before land is given back to them, although I now see how one could easily interpret it that way.
Sorry if I projected those people's opinions on your comment too much.
From what I've seen (because I've had similar discussions before) these people seem to be arguing exactly that and I honestly don't know how else to interpret it, it's just class reductionism. Like if they agree Indigenous people are oppressed and should have their land returned, why should Indigenous people have to wait until either the settler state becomes socialist or they somehow establish socialism on their own while still under the boot of the settler state? If these people don't agree Indigenous people should have their land returned, why? What assures that the settler colonial contradiction will be resolved through settler focused, class-only, socialism, y'know? It just gets frustrating seeing these types of people trying to use Marx and Lenin to justify their bad settler brains.
Yeah I've been trying to wrap my head around all this and I think the idea behind the criticism would be that socialists in the imperial core should put their efforts into seizing power and supporting "land back" efforts don't necessarily help with that (and in some cases it may even be harmful arguably). There's probably also some confusion where some instances of "land back" activity like that Bezos funded org in the US advocating for giving public land away are in capitalist interest whereas others are not.
Before you all go dogpile on the guy, I believe the context here is that there have been past instances where land was returned to indigenous people only for it to get sold to private interests. Also, the org that is behind the Landback manifesto is sketchy. As in like Jeff Bezos literally funds them.
That landback org is sketchy, but Indigenous people and Indigenous Marxsists have been calling for this for a long time
deleted by creator
The exact specifics always depends on the material conditions and the needs of the colonized people the land is being returned to, but I think you've got the general gist of it down. When we talk about "self determination" regarding land back a lot of people tend to think about it abstractly, but land back is the physical material necessity for self determination. The same way that workers need to own the means of production, Indigenous peoples needs to own their land.
deleted by creator
I'm slow at writing but I bopped it a reply
Yeah. It seems both sides of the landback debate are pro land reform actually. I guess where the disagreement here is is that peter coffin et al. are against supporting the present movements surrounding it before socialists have taken power?
It's more incoherent than that because a lot of people like Peter Coffin will openly support other colonized people like the Palestinians and black South Africans while it's the same system of oppression as in North America. It's just a mix of paternalism and settler guilt complex.
deleted by creator
that's more or less what Ulysses Grant tried to do the problem was that once gold was found on their land the government couldn't stop the settlers and when the natives killed the settlers it put public support for war to such a level that the government was essentially strong armed into it.
basically that might not actually be within the capabilities of the US government to do even if they were willing to do it
deleted by creator
Ehh Indigenous people are almost always under counted in population stats, not to mention there's racist shit like blood quantum rules that exist to specifically limit the size of Indigenous populations. And besides that it's not like all FNs are asking for complete autonomy with a "settlers go home" demand. That's why returning the land needs to be paired with decolonization, if there's one thing I can generalize about Indigenous people is that they want to co-operate with the people here, but our systems create oppression that prevents it.
Check out the Line 3 protests or the Fairy Creek blockade or any land/water defence action going on near you. Residential School Survivors Society (Canadian). If you want a group to support check out Red Nation.
I took some time to dig into this debate a bit more, and I think what Peter Coffin and others are saying is pretty clear. This is what happens when "land back" occurs under capitalism and it is why capitalists are funding the current "land back" movement: https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/senakw-squamish-first-nation-vancouver-rental-housing-development
The people who are against "land back" are against it not because of "paternalism and settler guilt complex" but because giving land back right now would ultimately end up serving capitalist interests
Just found this well written comment on r*ddit that talks about the exact article you're citing better than I can
deleted by creator
Oh, I shoulda figured lol. It was like perfect timing.
You're kinda proving my point about paternalism here.
Why should settlers get to dictate how the land is used? Should Israelis get to dictate how Palestinians use their land if/when it's returned? Should we as "leftists" be against Palestinians getting their land back because they might not be socialist?
If we look at Canada, this conditional right to land has always been the status quo. Recent conflicts like Wet'suwet'en blockades, the standoffs at Six Nations, Standing Rock, and the Baffinland blockades all occur because the government says that First Nations have a right to their land, but when they assert that right in opposition to capital, the state takes off its mask and brutalizes people who're asserting what's supposed to be their rights as distinct nations enshrined through treaties with the Canadian government. But when we see the state and First Nations getting along like in the example you brought up, we usually find it to be the band councils, which are Western style governance systems created through the Indian Act in Canada. As we should always keep in mind, Indigenous peoples, even those in the same First Nation, are not a monolith and so opposition can form between traditional and colonial systems of government. And even then we should understand the economic reasoning why both band and traditional leadership might support certain capital friendly decisions: the Canadian government has forced poverty on Indigenous people for centuries.
Remember, the contradictions at the heart of any society are dialectically linked and economism will not solve them all.
I think you may be making some false assumptions here so I'd like to make it clear that nowhere in my comment did I condemn them for their decision or purport to know what is better for them.
As far as I can tell, nobody is arguing that Indigenous people must first be socialist before land is given back to them, although I now see how one could easily interpret it that way.
Sorry if I projected those people's opinions on your comment too much.
From what I've seen (because I've had similar discussions before) these people seem to be arguing exactly that and I honestly don't know how else to interpret it, it's just class reductionism. Like if they agree Indigenous people are oppressed and should have their land returned, why should Indigenous people have to wait until either the settler state becomes socialist or they somehow establish socialism on their own while still under the boot of the settler state? If these people don't agree Indigenous people should have their land returned, why? What assures that the settler colonial contradiction will be resolved through settler focused, class-only, socialism, y'know? It just gets frustrating seeing these types of people trying to use Marx and Lenin to justify their bad settler brains.
Yeah I've been trying to wrap my head around all this and I think the idea behind the criticism would be that socialists in the imperial core should put their efforts into seizing power and supporting "land back" efforts don't necessarily help with that (and in some cases it may even be harmful arguably). There's probably also some confusion where some instances of "land back" activity like that Bezos funded org in the US advocating for giving public land away are in capitalist interest whereas others are not.