I mean your presence helps legitimise the colonial occupation of stolen land. Not that you really have a choice if you don't have the means for housing let alone migration.
To be a coloniser you must have power that you can exert over others. Homeless people have no power. A white homeless person simply existing does not exert any power over indigenous people.
Australia is a settler colonial country that was mostly convicts. The convicts had no choice to be there but their presence was what maintained and fueled the colonization. Homeless people are still (a small) part of the colonial force whether they want to be or not.
So then it should be esablished that white homeless people in settler colonial countries by themselves have no power. But the settler state uses their existence as a way to legitimise its own power. These aren't quite the same thing, which is what I thought your original comment was conflating.
The original comment includes any non land owner - eg renter and was suggesting ownership is all that is needed to be a coloniser
Can you really colonize if you don’t own land tho? Seems more like squatting than anything
Colonial forces are obviously much more than land ownership, it's an oppressive structure ingrained in society like racism, patriarchy, cisheteronormativity, etc. You passively contribute to it if you are part of the oppressor class.
A homeless man can still contribute to the patriarchy, settler colonialism, cisheteronormativity, etc
A homeless man can still contribute to the patriarchy, settler colonialism, cisheteronormativity, etc
Upon further reflection I agree but I think we should not be pointing to homeless and poor people as the oppressors in society. Your contribution to these systems is determined by the amount of power you have, and the bourgeosie and the state make way bigger contributions and attacking them will be way more effective than attacking disenfranchised people.
I guess I have just seen too much of 'white privelage' being used to attack poor white people.
yeah definitely its really not worth bringing up normally unless you are having a nuanced discussion on /why/ homeless people are settlers - i.e. being the powerless underclass settlers for powerful capitalist colonisers
I was really trying to address the whack take on land ownership, homeless people being the extreme end of this. the original comment incorrectly conflates land ownership and being a settler
the solution to being anti-colonial if youre a settler is the same solution to being anti-racist if youre white or anti-misogynistic if youre a male. don't abuse the privilege and actively resist and fight it within your means. I figure most homeless people aren't really in a position to do much so really nothing.
I mean your presence helps legitimise the colonial occupation of stolen land. Not that you really have a choice if you don't have the means for housing let alone migration.
If I were a white homeless I would simply move back to Europe
I don't really agree with this take.
To be a coloniser you must have power that you can exert over others. Homeless people have no power. A white homeless person simply existing does not exert any power over indigenous people.
Australia is a settler colonial country that was mostly convicts. The convicts had no choice to be there but their presence was what maintained and fueled the colonization. Homeless people are still (a small) part of the colonial force whether they want to be or not.
So then it should be esablished that white homeless people in settler colonial countries by themselves have no power. But the settler state uses their existence as a way to legitimise its own power. These aren't quite the same thing, which is what I thought your original comment was conflating.
The original comment includes any non land owner - eg renter and was suggesting ownership is all that is needed to be a coloniser
Colonial forces are obviously much more than land ownership, it's an oppressive structure ingrained in society like racism, patriarchy, cisheteronormativity, etc. You passively contribute to it if you are part of the oppressor class.
A homeless man can still contribute to the patriarchy, settler colonialism, cisheteronormativity, etc
Upon further reflection I agree but I think we should not be pointing to homeless and poor people as the oppressors in society. Your contribution to these systems is determined by the amount of power you have, and the bourgeosie and the state make way bigger contributions and attacking them will be way more effective than attacking disenfranchised people.
I guess I have just seen too much of 'white privelage' being used to attack poor white people.
yeah definitely its really not worth bringing up normally unless you are having a nuanced discussion on /why/ homeless people are settlers - i.e. being the powerless underclass settlers for powerful capitalist colonisers
I was really trying to address the whack take on land ownership, homeless people being the extreme end of this. the original comment incorrectly conflates land ownership and being a settler
So, what's the solution to this?
the solution to being anti-colonial if youre a settler is the same solution to being anti-racist if youre white or anti-misogynistic if youre a male. don't abuse the privilege and actively resist and fight it within your means. I figure most homeless people aren't really in a position to do much so really nothing.
Works for me.