I honestly don't know but this question has been on my mind for the past week
It'd all have to be given back to them, since they were here first and it was all stolen from them and we forced them all into worthless land in the desert. Where would everyone in the US go? The reaction against that would be... something else. It would make all the low intensity warfare during Reconstruction look like a picnic.
I think the US and states would need to give back state and nationally owned land, as well as purchase (or use eminent domain) land near where their original tribes lived, and give them the resources for decades, to develop themselves. This too may still cause a huge backlash.
I think the least that should be done, is, where the reservations AREN'T on worthless desert land that we forced them onto, we should have to invest as much as is required to make the reservations WAY better, until a longer term restorative solution is found.....
Which, I doubt would be allowed.
landback isn't about kicking white people out, in most interpretations. it's about collective tribal ownership of land, which, around socialist principles would promote preservation at the expense of private industry. it's not a proposal to have indigenous people come in and just take over the capitalist machinery at the expense of whites, it'll in theory be better for everyone and probably in practice much like the minority SRs of the USSR---russian settlers remained and had political rights, the formerly colonized just got a bit more.
landback isn't about kicking white people out,
No, it's not, but you know that's how reactionaries would frame it. And it would work.
if reactionaries had free press, but any large scale implementation necessitates a socialist order that wouldnt allow that
How are you going to stop it? They are already primed for that narrative. You can't just wish away the backlash that WILL happen
Probably the closest you could find to an indigenous led decolonization movement is probably something like the zapatistas in chiapas
I like to wonder about it, but as a non-indigenous person I don't think it's my place to discuss it, beyond how to make it happen.
Dude i don't even know, we aren't even close to being able to see such a thing.
Its impossible to truly predict. Could one before the fall of the Soviet Bloc truly outline how a post soviet, neoliberal world would end up?
But the things we know for sure is the land back and native enfranchisement to lead their own governments. I will literally not care if they are capitalist, monarchist, or socialist states, they could be a commune society too. I support whatever they want no matter what.
But trying to outline what it looks like would involve a world political stage we are not in, which is in the true crisis moment of capitalism. The USA is currently losing their foreign capitalist power (colonies, vassals, and such). We must see when the contradictions can no longer be exported to other countries, and are forced inward.
The internal political turmoil will then outline the will of the oppressed, as the superstructure is weakened, allowing them to take full action against it like never before. This is when the liberation fronts form, or the united fronts. Then it will be easier to outline how it all ends up.
We could start by trying to honor some of the treaties that America shit all over, or stop violating agreements whenever they inconvenience capital (like with DAPL).
I don't know what a fully "decolonized America" would look like, but there are a lot of concrete places where we could give the idea a start, see what happens, and go from there.
Maybe this is dumb, but I always thought that black Americans deserve a couple of states to themselves with full autonomy in those states. Like, if they're lacking in political power, they're always gonna be fucked with.
I agree, but the problem is that controlling only a couple of states, there's still enough levers in the American system available to dilute and stymie them. Full independence would be necessary
