Don’t worry, we’ll put it in the textbooks 100 years from now to talk about how cruel we were
Now do Russia and the occupied Soviet “republics” lol, or are you trying to push a specific narrative?
Wait a sec, wasn’t the majority of that land in the western states claimed by New Spain and then Mexico? How is the maker of this map qualifying “land of native nations”?
The lands you are probably referring was the Mexican Cession (most of the US western lands now). That cession happened after the Mexican war that ended in the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo signed in 1848. So the map mostly accurately reflects that as US territory in 1850.
There were people there before New Spain and Mexico claimed the land. I imagine they’re qualifying it using something like the map I linked.
To see diagram progressions like this is really sad. like a beautiful rainforest gradually being chipped away into nothing. same perps too considering the vast majority of Israelis are European
What percentage are European? I didn’t know that.
well if you look at their leaders it’s close to 100 if not that
Look up DNA testing in Israel, their govt doesn’t want people testing and finding out their genetic history seems to include an awful lot of eastern Europe and not anything from the Middle East.
Even Ashkenazi Jews are from Turkey, not historic Palestine.
Purdy much, most Palestinians are actually the native Jewish population who converted to Christianity and then Islam. That’s why the Israeli government doesn’t want DNA testing.
Any ideas why they converted? I wasn’t aware of this, and I don’t see that it matters…I’m just curious.
Christian crusades followed by Islam doing what Islam is designed to do.
Mass conversion of populations are not common. It’s either conquest, oppression or rebellion.
A lot of it was forced conversion. There’s a long history of religious and cultural oppression of various peoples in the region. You could probably find some online documentaries about it, though more than a few likely view the events through a pro-Zionist lens.
The official Israeli CBS cites 50% of Israeli Jews having their ancestry in Europe, primarily Ashkenazi and post-Soviet groups… but of course, with DNA test ban in Israel is hard to know for sure… Being 75% of the Israeli population Jewish, that places it as 2/3 of Jews in Israel are from European origin… and that is their own stats. I would even say more are.
“Indian reservations” are concentration camps
German labor camps were obviously concentration camps
and the strategic hamlet program were concentration camps
and ICE detention centers are concentration camps
either way it is always white people and their concentration camps
I get the sentiment, and by no means are the reservations good or something that should’ve been how it played out, but I do feel like putting them on the same level as ICE centers and concentration camps downplays just how bad those latter two really are/were.
putting them on the same level as ICE centers and concentration camps
You’re right they were way fucking worse than that.
Have you actually been to a reservation? And not one of the “good ones” (disgusts me to even split hairs like this) but I mean like Pine Ridge. They are literally death camps in all but name.
A couple years ago one elder was burning his own clothes to keep warm and not freeze to death, another elder died in his home because his fireplace went out while he was sleeping. Drug abuse is rampant kids are killing each other over scraps, there was a shooting at a powwow last year in the middle of sun dance. There is almost no drinking water that isn’t contaminated by the nearby bombing range and uranium mines.
The average life expectancy on Pine Ridge reservation TODAY is lower than it was in Gaza before the recent bombings started.
Oh and just to get there, the tribes around the black hills were sent on a forced death march through the badlands to settle in the least desirable land in the region.
This is where they were sent:
I get the feeling you’ve not been told about all the death and disease Native Americans experienced in reservations, especially at the beginning. The only real difference is reservations did not have buildings…they were just wastelands.
Can the Native Americans freely leave the reservations?
Today? Yeah. Back then? No.
You forgot the pre-1700s picture where all of the US is red.
Bloodthirsty british and european settlers, greedy for land, wiped out hundreds of native tribes, each with rich cultures, art, languages, and beliefs. And most of this happened less than 150 years ago.
Clearing an entire continent of peoples is unprecendented in history, and what’s worse, is that it’s still ongoing, and no one has had to account for this earth-shattering crime.
I know who you are and I know you won’t bother to read into this but for anyone else interested. Most of the native population was wiped out before the first English got here. Disease spreads and a bunch of Spaniards started spreading diseases in the 1500s.
Diseases did not conquer hundreds of tribes. The history of the new world is a one of campaigns of war and conquest against indigenous peoples. The fact that many are ignorant of this history is part of the whitewashing project. I linked some audiobooks below so you can learn this history.
If the nazis won, they would teach you about the shoah in exactly the same way western nations teach you about the colonization of the americas.
Diseases did not conquer hundreds of tribes.
Disease played a major role in the European’s ability to conquer those tribes. It’s not an either/or situation. It is true that the “Americas” that the English started colonizing had already been devastated by the contagions brought by the Spanish. The English undoubtedly would have found it far more difficult and maybe even impossible to conquer those hundreds of tribes had they not first been so severely depopulated by pandemic. Acknowledging this does not absolve or even lessen the atrocities committed by the English.
/s. Unfortunately your rhetoric does not follow party line. Please censor yourself.
(I do appreciate that one of you is a historian and not a party liner)
The upper estimates are around 90%. It’s likely lower. But even an order of magnitude like that is not “wiped out”. Millions of people still lived on the land
My brother if there had a hundred people in your town you lost 70 to 90% of your people and then there were only 25 to 11 of you left alive I’d say your group was obliterated. I do not argue that there were still millions of natives left alive, but there were roughly 60 to 100 million natives prior to the first explorers arriving.
That’s supposed to make it better?
Very true, but Spaniards did not know about the lack of immunity from European diseases and never had that intention for erasure of Indigenous. The English, that colonized 2 centuries after the Spaniards, used European diseases as an additional tool for complete genocide on indigenous.
The Spanish 100% knew. What pipe are you smoking from friend? They would intentionally trade items from the people in their camp that had smallpox to the natives. That’s how the initial outbreak on the coast started in 1518. They explicitly knew this would happen because they first exploited Cuba and the other New world Islands and found out there in the 1490s.
Germ theory was unknown then and those Spaniards lacked understanding of contagion, well I’m lying, the people then knew about contagion with blood and corpses but not through items like air or blankets. The disease spread, while catastrophic it was fully unintentional. The only accounts like the famed Bartolomé de las Casas described the diseases as “divine punishment” or “mysterious plague”, never as a warfare tool.
However with the British, again more than 2 centuries later, there was knowledge and intent as per Jeffrey Amherst and Colonel Henry Bouquet discussing it “Could it not be contrived to send the smallpox among the disaffected tribes?” “I will try to inoculate them with some blankets…” during the Siege of Fort Pitt (1763).
So Spanish are just as bad as the English then. That doesn’t help your case.
Case? You seem confused, I said the natives were mostly gone before the English stepped foot in the new world. That’s a historical fact read a book. I’m not saying anything else. I have no case.
Same perpetrators as well.
“Ah but you see, a long time has passed by! There’s generations [of settler-colonialists] that have already lived through these times, and the people of today have nothing to do with their past!”
Motherfucker, landback means the LAND which is rightfully the Indigenous’ is taken BACK, and it means you GO BACK too, no one should give a fuck about which gen. you’re currently a part of.
They’re going to say the exact same shit for Palestine if it’s allowed to be festered long enough by settler-colonialists, as if it already hasn’t been festered.
and it means you GO BACK too
Go back to where? I’ve never lived anywhere else
and it means you GO BACK too, no one should give a fuck about which gen. you’re currently a part of.
This would mean that like 99.9% of Earth’s population has to move somewhere. Almost all land was fought over endlessly and changed metaphorical hands multiple times over. What we call “indigenous people” in a territory is usually just whoever was winning those wars before written history began.
What “landback” actually means is recognizing the systemic racism that was and still is perpetuated against the indigenous people by means of taking away their ancestral lands, slaughtering and enslaving their ancestors, and destroying their way of life; and addressing that racism by giving jurisdiction and sovereignty over their lands back to them. It doesn’t mean that everyone but the indigenous people have to move out; descendants of colonizers born there are technically natives of that land too. The difference is that they get systemic advantages from their ancestry whereas indigenous people get systemic discrimination. This is the thing that ought to be addressed. (well, the horrifying economic and governance system that the colonizers brought and festered must be addressed too, but all three are tightly coupled together)
In the case of Israel the difference is that a lot of colonizers are first gen, they are not natives, they do have somewhere to “go back to”, and they are actively perpetuating colonization and genocide rather than simply getting an advantage from their ancestors doing so. In such cases it of course makes sense for the decolonization effort to focus on direct expulsion of invaders.
In the extremely unlikely event that indigenous people got direct executive control over what happens in the continental united states, I don’t think they’d even want the mass exodus of all white people. Nor do I think they’d want full cultural assimilation. My entire life, the prevailing narrative has always just been the end of systemic oppression. Very frequently I’ve heard indigenous rights activists demand the free use of/free travel across land for things like hunting, which is a pretty small ask. Just because this or that action would be justified, doesn’t mean it’s the action people want. IMO the second minority ethnic groups feel safe and represented these kinds of mass exodus narratives will fade away. Doubly so if there was a transition to socialism that went with it, and some thought went into identifying the different national identities (so something akin to a soviet of nationalities could be formed).
Yes, this is exactly my point.
The best thing you can do is just never center white people. 99.999% of the time that’s the wrong way to frame your argument.
I fully understood what you were trying to say, but I can’t say the responses you got are at all that surprising either.
The last will be first. Landback and decolonization means putting the reigns into the hands of the indigenous people’s hands, and letting go of the reigns, not just holding onto the reigns but giving the colonized people some of the reigns. The best settlers can hope for is to be treated kinder than they have treated the people whose land they stole. I myself was born in the US, and am still a settler here, just because I was born here does not absolve my role. It means I have a historic duty to help carry out decolonization and land back, from the back, not as a leading role.
Read Fanon.
This is an extremely white washed version of land back. Pretty sure land back means full control over what happens on that land, including what kind of people can live on it, something that is currently controlled exclusively by the colonial government.
If they’re feeling generous they might give you the option to stay on the condition that you assimilate into their culture.
You know, the thing Europeans forced Indigenous peoples to do. Not saying settlers should be forced through violence to do so, but I think it’s more than fair that if you’re going to stay, you have to assimilate.
But you’re not entitled to even assimilation if they just don’t want you here. And they have plenty of reason not to want you here.
I know that as a 1st gen Chinese immigrant to Canada (I came here as a kid so wasn’t my choice), if all the Indigenous groups where I live unambiguously told me to GTFO. I would in good conscience have to do so and hope I can use my birth certificate to reclaim Chinese citizenship. I’m by every definition a settler so it’s only fair. Whatever struggles I have in China (namely language barrier since I can barely read Chinese) I will have to deal with and it’s not on the Indigenous people to let me stay just because I can’t survive anywhere else.
Where you go back to and what happens to you isn’t the problem of the people you colonized. And by transferring that problem on to them, you are in fact perpetuating colonialism.
Pretty much this, you read my mind here.
Spot on comrade.
I couldn’t name a single ancestor of mine that wasn’t born in America, so where would I get shipped off to?
Funny, when indigenous peoples from the americas asked that question, the US settlers just killed them.
Are you really doing a “reverse ethnic cleansing” rn? Lord free me from redditors.
As far as I can tell, I’m being told that in this hypothetical scenario, it’s okay for me to be jailed or removed from my home because I’m not indigenous. Am I misreading it?
If you’re so concerned about it, maybe go talk to some of the Indigenous people in your area and work with them then. Give them a reason to let you stay. You complaining to two other settlers on Lemmy certainly won’t help your case.
Thanks for your concern, I’ll make sure to double check my standing with them but I think I’ll be alright. Maybe if I’m lucky, I can do a DNA test and find some indigenous ancestry that I didn’t know about, the thresholds would probably have to be pretty low but it’s possible I could squeak in there and get to be on the ruling side instead.
Step 1: Steal something.
Step 2: Give it to your kid.
Step 3: The kid whines finders keepers, and that they shouldn’t have to give it back.
Makes it a bit difficult when the kid whining is actually a 40 year old man living in a house that his family has lived in for generations. Good luck making the appeal to them.
As far as I know, my ancestors didn’t steal anything. It’s possible they did, and I’m sure they unfairly benefitted from systemic injustice and oppression of others, and I’m happy to help address that at the expense of my own privilege, but I don’t see how that makes it okay to literally deport me to some strange country for their hypothetical crimes.
Bruh, coming here was the theft itself. What part of stolen LAND do you not understand?
Not the indigenous people’s problem. If they tell you to leave, it’ll be up to you to figure it out.
I don’t have another country waiting to accept me, and I don’t particularly want to leave the only place I’ve ever lived, so if they want me gone, it is their problem. Are they tossing me in jail because I have the wrong ethnicity? Deporting me to a place I have no connection to?
I have no right to say what they should do and neither do you.
I have no right to say what they should do and neither do you.
Do you think all indigenous people can do whatever the fuck they want, as long as they are on their own land, and noone has any right to judge their actions?
1930s germans were indigenous people on their own land, after all.
I agree that cultural assimilation requirements and dealing harshly with white nationalists are ok; mass expulsion is not.
And I’m also pretty sure that most native Americans don’t want mass expulsion, so this whole discussion is moot.
As if indigenous societies never fought wars and claimed land between eachother. Send all of humanity to Africa and let the squirrels and birds take back their land while we’re at it.
I really didn’t think I was being subtle here. I’m going to stop “just asking questions” and instead say that I’m surprised to see, in this of all threads, a sincere argument that there are some circumstances where it is okay for one ethnic group to systemically displace another, despite both groups only having that place to claim as a homeland.
Basically, read it as “you should kill yourself if you’re not exactly where your ancestors lived 10000 years ago”. That’s what these people seem to think, they just don’t want to say the quiet part out loud.
I live in a country where we have a very large amount of Russians, many of whom completely lack citizenship because they moved here during the soviet occupation so didn’t get automatic Estonian citizenship after our independence, but also haven’t gotten Estonian or Russian citizenship after the fact. This number has decreased over the years because most people have acquired some citizenship, but we still have tens of thousands with no state at all. I can’t imagine simply deporting all of those people. In fact, we’re now giving out citizenship to children of non-citizen parents who have lived in the country for at least 5 years, to avoid creating more stateless people. This is despite the fact that a lot of those people getting citizenship are also the descendants of settlers, with roots in a country hostile to our own. Those people’s entire lives are here, who are we to uproot them just because we were here first? It’s too late now.
You’re talking to someone from .ml.
You should probably choose your battles on this one, the amount of people there that can’t see double standards or hypocrisy is astounding.
are actively perpetuating colonization and genocide rather than simply getting an advantage from their ancestors
USAmericans are also doing this too. The overconsumption done by yankees would require multiple planet earths if everyone were allowed to consume as much as they do and the US government is guilty of exporting a capitalist system that causes climate change, not to mention the imperialism abroad. There is no functional difference between the US and Israel, just “Big Satan” vs. “Little Satan.”
USAmericans are also doing this too. The overconsumption done by yankees would require multiple planet earths if everyone were allowed to consume as much as they do and the US government is guilty of exporting a capitalist system that causes climate change, not to mention the imperialism abroad.
I mentioned this as another thing that needs addressing in a timely manner.
Very few countries currently are based on native eviction, where settlers have nearly replaced the indigenous peoples. The US, canada, australia, new zealand, israel are the main ones.
I think it’s projecting western colonial guilt to claim that all countries are equally based on indigenous eviction. Even colonial projects like Spain’s in South America did not do to their indigenous peoples what the british did to north america.
Very few countries currently are based on native eviction, where settlers have nearly replaced the indigenous peoples.
As a founding point? Yes, I agree. I also agree that colonization scale done by British was greater than anything ever done before.
However, that wasn’t my point. My point was: almost everyone on Earth lives where they do because their ancestors killed or evicted the people that lived there previously. This is in particular is not unique to any western country. Hell, reading the history of Russia, my home country, makes it pretty clear that my own deep ancestry did plenty of killing and evicting too, mostly of themselves, to get to where they all ended up (not even talking about Siberia here). It wasn’t at the founding point of Russia though, and none of the peoples who lost their wars are culturally alive anymore. Does it matter if all the conquest led to the foundation of a modern country, or just different tribal lands (or later city states)? I don’t think it does.
I think what does matter is justice for those descendants of the colonized who are still alive, and if there’s noone left, at least understanding and recognition of the horribleness that lead up to the point of your birth.
Colonialist Spain formally recognized in 1542 Indigenous peoples as “free vassals of the Crown” as Spaniards themselves, not slaves. Of course, as in The Mission movie portrayed, many colonialists violated the Crown’s laws (Columbus himself was imprisoned for violating a Crown law from 1495 banning enslaving Taíno people). The Spanish crown wanted conversion + integration whereas British sought *erasure * of the Indigenous. But it was not just the Crown laws, individuals from Spain easily intermarried from early on, the English did not.
This distinction of the Spanish colonist vs all their norther neighbors that were far more repressive. I attribute this to the Spanish experience under Islamic rule for 8 centuries, where differences were highly tolerated and conversion was ‘only’ mandatory for those not considered as “peoples of the Book” mentioned on the Islamic scriptures.
To conclude, Spanish colonialism, from the Americas to the Philippines, was abusive, sometimes heavily, but the centuries later the ‘civilized’ British one was plainly genocidal from beginning to finish and the independent United States, continued with the legacy if not increasing it. In word of historian James Axtell: “The Spanish asked Native people to become something else [Christians]; the British demanded they vanish.”
What percentage of Israelis do you think are born there?
deleted by creator
I agree with your points entirely, it’s just amusing to see the people who do disagree experience a tiny iota of the fear and despair that the indigenous peoples of America and beyond had to feel when their world was destroyed and stolen.
It is really telling that suddenly they fear for their lives once they think they will be victims of the same colonization that gave them privilege. They’ve internalized that this process only functions through mass slaughter and terror and start waxing poetic about “human nature”
Realistically and logistically speaking, if they were ever to retrieve their land back, the Native Americans would probably be MORE accepting of the idea to live amongst the working class that don’t originate from their land rather than “evicting” the population, basic infrastructure (that’s already replaced native tribes’ land) would need maintenance, first of all.
The fact that it scares them that this highly unlikely scenario of reclaiming land then the Indigenous do whatever they want with it is very poetic. The fact that they’ve probably also imagined dramatically violent scenarios of this is also funny, funny strange.
I call this the finders keepers rule of colonialism. The western supremacists think that as long as you
- Kill a large enough percentage of the native population, and
- Wait long enough
Then the finders keepers rule kicks in, and you get to keep anything you stole. They even will yell “no ethnostates!!” at indegenous peoples they evicted and stole land from.
The main point is that its not for anyone but indigenous peoples to determine what they want to do with their land.
I agree that colonizers have harmed indigenous people, but find the argument anyone has a birth right claim to property proposterous. As Proudhon proclaimed, “Property is theft!”. I expect any revolution toward anarchy to remove property from the owning class.
I am less knowledgable than you about “land back”. How does “land back” differ from other ethno nationalist movements like “blood and soil”?
Removed by mod
Do you think that some far-away land with a different culture, that hates immigrants, would accept someone in just because of blood relation?
That’s not the Indigenous peoples’ problem. They might even think it’s poetic justice for how European culture treated them. Europe, for its part, also has no right to complain about the influx of North Americans because they started this whole thing.
Are you familiar with “moral desert”? I’m legitimately quite curious about your system of ethics. I don’t really believe in moral desert myself; instead, we should try to improve the lives of everyone, and in particular increase equality and if necessary equity.
In my opinion, land back is important because it will help bring equality back into balance. It’s just one of many steps to repairing society into an equitable state though. The “righting” of historical wrongs is not necessary for this; and I honestly don’t think such a thing even makes sense as a concept. Should we hunt down descendents of nazis and kill them for the crimes of their ancestors?
I’m not saying that I’d necessarily agree with the expulsion of all settlers, but I’m saying it’s not my place to pass judgment and if they tell me to leave, it’s definitely not my place to argue why I have a right to this stolen land.
The “righting” of historical wrongs is not necessary for this
Yes it is. Some things are unforgivable and must be made right in its entirety. The people who benefited from that wrong, myself included, have absolutely zero right to comment on what that should entail.
You get it. I just responded something similar in this same thread.
myself included, have absolutely zero right to comment on what that should entail
Can you please explain why you said this, then?
Motherfucker, landback means the LAND which is rightfully the Indigenous’ is taken BACK, and it means you GO BACK too, no one should give a fuck about which gen. you’re currently a part of.
I didn’t?
Oh, I’m really sorry! I got mixed up.
You’re just being a debate pervert now. Seriously you should go back. At least go back to reddit.
Seriously you should go back. At least go back to reddit.
fuck reddit
(also, this isn’t even your instance.)
Land back means the ownership of the land is returned; it does not mean the expulsion of non-indigenous people
Not up to you or me, that’s up to the indigenous tribes themselves to decide.
That doesn’t really make sense if you’re not first-gen; there is nowhere to go “back” to, if you were born there.
Less than half an hour later, the finders keepers rule I talked about elsewhere in this thread gets invoked.
Maybe you should get off your armchair and go to a protest.
Extremely redditor behavior
Not just reddit but very lib brain behavior. They need material support for people on the rez not some cracker with a white savior complex holding a sign at a rally.
So you’re saying that we shouldn’t have protests…?
By all means sure protest and use it to get people to do something more but telling Dessalines who literally created this platform and did more actual work than most of us ever had to get off their chair and go protest strikes me as lost liberal behavior.
I didn’t say that to Dessalines.
@Nakoichi@hexbear.net that was actually to me. But even then, assuming I’m not already engaging in real-life activism to downplay the point I was making isn’t really a valid criticism of the point, but ig looking at other threads you seem to get that by now so it’s w/e really.
Maybe you should get off your armchair and go to a protest
(I admit I probably violated rule 1; my apologies to @Samsuma for that.)
What I mean by this is that people who are actually involved in these issues out on the street talk very differently than people do on lemmy. Or reddit for that matter. I go to some Indigenous issues protests in British Columbia now and then, usually it’s street blockades; “land back” is a very common rallying call. I’ve chatted with many protesters; what they mean by this is “the landlords should be indigenous” essentially. And also that much more territory should be transferred back to the reserves. Some people even put the goal at replacing the government entirely. But nobody is talking about ethnic cleansing.
By finders keepers, what I thought you meant was “it was done in the past, by different people, so it’s not a problem that can be solved anymore.” That’s different from “we have to completely erase all people descended from settlers/colonists.”
Hi there I am one of those people with over 20 years of direct action work on this topic and some of my best friends are Lakota, if they wanted me to leave with the rest of my settler kin I would honor that and keep fighting for revolution elsewhere God knows if I got sent back to Ireland or Wales I would have plenty work to do. You should think very hard about why you are so defensive about this.
That said chances are if you actually put in the work and shut the fuck up about impracticality or whatever else excuse you use, you’d probably be allowed to stay. Hell my friends family invited me to a wedding out at Pine Ridge but sadly I could not afford the travel expenses to attend because my last trip out there to help them with the sun dance cost me a couple grand.
In conclusion stop white-splaning land back it is not up to us what it means.
Also to the point of “go to a protest” I would ask you to go to a reservation if they want your help and do something more meaningful than some toothless march.
I didn’t give impracticality as an excuse. I just don’t agree with ethnic cleansing. Everyone has a right to live where they were born. Furthermore, it just doesn’t track with the indigenous people I actually know in real life. I can’t imagine any of them wanting to expel most of their friends.
do something more meaningful
I help with language revitalization on occasion, there are places coders like myself can help there. I’ll admit it’s not exactly a full-time job, but it has its value. But in general I don’t want to bother people who live on reserves. Regardless, I reject the notion that you need to actually be helping in order to have an opinion.
I reject the notion that you need to actually be helping in order to have an opinion.
Damn almost took you seriously for a second.
imo if people are talking about kicking you out of the place you were born, you are warranted an opinion.
But nobody is talking about ethnic cleansing.
Reclaiming stolen land is not ethnic cleansing.
And also that much more territory should be transferred back to the reserves.
Correct and it leads to a simple question: If the tribal governments decide that all land claims and titles in the county upon which your house resides are null and void, they’re beginning a land reclamation project, current title holders have no rights to the land, what are you going to do? Fight them? Claim ethnic cleansing? It’s their land, not yours.
Reclaiming stolen land is not ethnic cleansing.
Right. That’s my point. Land back ≠ ethnic cleansing. I’m not sure we actually disagree with each other? The comment I posted, which is now deleted, was entirely just saying “no, land back does not mean ethnic cleansing” in response to @Samsuma.
what are you going to do
I don’t have any rights to the land to begin with. I’m not a home-owner. What would be different? If nobody gives me a home, then I’m homeless. As a ~socialist, I don’t believe we should have homelessness, but that’s not what you asked
“no, land back does not mean ethnic cleansing”
I didn’t suggest ethnic cleansing in the meaning of land back, nor does land back suggest ethnic cleansing. ONE of the scenarios of land back means you (as in the settler populus) would have to start pack up your stuff and leave, if this is what the Indigenous would want with their land reclaimed, then it’s not up to you or me.
This is of course highly, highly unlikely and as others and I have mentioned in other threads, the Indigenous majority would actually realistically want people to stay, most probably including you (idk, I’m not a USian, never mind a Native American), if this is what you’re worried about.
If I was a USian, I’d thank my lucky stars that they’d be this kind and HAVE BEEN despite them sustaining centuries of one of, if not the most brutal ethnic cleansing, land desecration and genocide, which is still ongoing to this day.
if this is what the Indigenous would want with their land reclaimed, then it’s not up to you or me.
I was responding to you saying it necessarily means packing up and leaving. That is our point of contention. I agree with you that land back could lead to an ethnic cleansing in theory, though I agree also it’s very unlikely. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but this is what you said that made me think you meant something else:
Motherfucker, landback means […] you GO BACK too, no one should give a fuck about which gen. you’re currently a part of.
also
if this is what you’re worried about.
(a) I’m Canadian btw; US isn’t the only colonial country. and (b) I’m not worried about it, no. It’s a completely absurd and very improbable notion. Indeed, I often have to remind people who are worried about it that white genocide/ethnic cleansing/whatever is a total myth and conspiracy theory. So I’m shocked when I see on lemmy somebody talk about it as though it’s a real thing.
Less than half an hour later, the finders keepers rule I talked about elsewhere in this thread gets invoked.
it’s almost like the most thought-terminating cliches absolutely HAVE to be said and mentioned in the slightest available opportunity 🤣
Relocating what would likely end up being hundreds of millions of people at once, or in any reasonable time-frame, doesn’t seem realistic imo.
Not only is it unrealistic it would lead to the death of millions. Millions of elderly and disabled people would just die from such a relocation.
Well luckily that isn’t what most indigenous people want but if they did that is not our place to disagree. Fuck your settler grandparents.
Also it’s very much actively going on and the current generation is totally involved.
There are people still alive who grew up in residential schools. There are even people alive who knew survivors of the Trail of Tears. The genocide of Native Americans really wasn’t that long ago and (like you said) still ongoing.
Obama forced an oil pipeline through indigenous land in what? 2014?
Some audiobook torrents on the US settler colonial project:
I’m gonna check this out
Didn’t Mexico own a lot of that land in the Southwest?
funny thing is that Texas succeeded from Mexico not to join the US but because Mexico outlawed slavery.
Traitor lunatics gonna traitor lunatic.
Seceded
While OP show north america in the 1800s they failed to supply the original British mandate area from the 1920s which gives a bit perspective to the next images. Also note that while the Jewish leadership accepted the UN partition plan it was rejected by the Arab/Palestinian over and over.
And it is not a meme.
ah yes the basic ‘but arabs rejected the partition!’ argument?
is this similar to the terrible ‘all palestinians are just arabs’ angle so they should just just leave and give it to colonial settlers, just because?
Why do the brits always think they’re allowed to draw lines on territory that doesn’t belong to them, and evict native peoples.
-
How does it provide any further perspective? “They actually don’t deserve their land because they were colonized by the British”?
-
Why would you expect the Palestinians to accept a plan to give half of their land away to a violent colonial expansionist ideology. Should Poland have peacefully given half their land to Germany to avoid the invasion? Do you really think that would work anyway, or is it just an excuse to blame the victims for their own genocide?
Edit: Also, since then Palestine has called for the partition borders to be enforced, and Israel/their allies were the ones to deny it. Israel only ever supported the plan as a means to an end, further colonial expansion.
Which Poland borders?
Over the years borders are dynamic. Most of the time they are changed via wars, violent conflicts and later treaties, some more stable than others. It happen all over the world throughout history. Unless there is a large physical border, you can look at almost any part of the world and see the huge amount of border changes over the years. Focusing on just two places like the above “meme” is hypocrisy.
-
Also note that right before that Israeli leaders literally killed the UN mefiator Folke Bernadotte because they didn’t like how his partition plan and then replaced him with a Zionist who gave all most if Palestine to Jews.
I get the point but these are two very different circumstances. Israelites and Palestinians are both native to the area. Their ancestors were Canaans and Philistines. The ownership of land is the result of western powers deciding how best to divide and conquer.
Native Americans are native to the area and Europeans/Americans were not.
The vast majority of “Israelis” are 100% European whose ancestors converted to Judaism.
There’s a reason Israel bans DNA tests. They want to keep up the illusion that they’re still descendants of the people the Torah talked about.
I guess it depends what counts as “native”
“no one in my family tree has any memory of the place but we have a book that says we lived there thousands of years ago” is not what most people mean when they say “native”
How is this a meme?
Well it’s low effort and loses a lot of nuance in the way it draws its maps, so there is that
It’s not really, but what a meme is has kind of transcended to “any image on the internet”.
Memes have to be pictures?
“Birds aren’t real” is a meme in my book.
Fair enough. I mostly just meant to highlight that it’s kinda used for anything on the internet lately.
I remember reading the selfish gene maybe a decade ago… iirc a meme is really just any idea, that like a gene, can replicate and spread, and has a “fitness” to its environment that means it either spreads easier, or dies out. It applies to any idea / mental construct, from art, music, even to sayings, philosophies or moods.
Removed by mod
At first I thought I agree with the post and now I’m second-guessing what OP is trying to convey. This is an amazingly ambiguous picture when posted without further commentary.
You’re not sure if you oppose the genocide of indigenous peoples or not?
I’m sure some people are perfectly okay with the bottom part and would consider it a great justification for the top part. That’s what I meant.
Ah, my bad.
I mean, they’re trying to say that the terrible colonialism practiced by the European-based American people against the native Americans is happening again in Israel, which is definitely a good point to be made. We’re well past the ability to stop the atrocities committed by America in the past, but we’re able to stop Israel today. The same idea applies to the terrible treatment of non-while populations in America today by ICE and other agencies, while we’re on the topic of preventable atrocities.
Huh. I hope we can get to understand the post by talking about it. I’m not trying to be condescending or annoying. I’m trying to see what you see. What did you think at first the image showed and how did the comment about tankies lead you to second-guess?
Right, I was too vague too. See my other comment please.
I think this is another america bad post. Like we don’t know that already.
Posting this to /memes is what confuses me the most
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
What’s the south-west portion of gaza that’s assigned to Israel in the map?
Rafah crossing
The gaza strip, ie the current world concentration camp, is where israel and it’s euro-amerikkkan allies have quardoned off 2 million palestinians.
I think you misread the question
