I feel that, but when you say the ideal is an indigenous led movement, and case that on the assumption that indigenous people will be all on board, it doesn’t come off as multi faceted, especially when you say that’s the ideal outcome. Your ideal outcome is based off of an assumption based on race, while lumping many races and cultures together. That’s easy different from “we need to bring the various indigenous people to the table and try to rebuild in a way outside of colonialism”.
It’s not at all contradictory to say that in the context of a settler-colony like the US Empire, indigenous peoples will need to play a leading role among the broader working classes. It isn’t about racial supremacy, but about acknowledging the importance of decolonization.
I think we’re having a communication issue, where I’m trying to explain how you’re coming off, and you’re trying to explain how you’re right. Being correct doesn’t mean that you presented that correctness in a way that honors your truth, and can have the opposite effect of what you want. I don’t even disagree with what your overall point is, but the way you’ve been wording things until this last comment hasn’t been doing your overall point justice.
It’s very hard to tell that you’re listening. Maybe that’s something else you can work on, I’d be happy to provide feedback so you can help people feel heard and included.
Bro, if we’re talking about convenience tone, you’ve come off like that from the start with people. I don’t think you meant it, but you sounded very “holier and more socially enlightened than thou”, especially when you doubled down on explaining things rather than like, trying to understand what they were saying.
I feel that, but when you say the ideal is an indigenous led movement, and case that on the assumption that indigenous people will be all on board, it doesn’t come off as multi faceted, especially when you say that’s the ideal outcome. Your ideal outcome is based off of an assumption based on race, while lumping many races and cultures together. That’s easy different from “we need to bring the various indigenous people to the table and try to rebuild in a way outside of colonialism”.
It’s not at all contradictory to say that in the context of a settler-colony like the US Empire, indigenous peoples will need to play a leading role among the broader working classes. It isn’t about racial supremacy, but about acknowledging the importance of decolonization.
I think we’re having a communication issue, where I’m trying to explain how you’re coming off, and you’re trying to explain how you’re right. Being correct doesn’t mean that you presented that correctness in a way that honors your truth, and can have the opposite effect of what you want. I don’t even disagree with what your overall point is, but the way you’ve been wording things until this last comment hasn’t been doing your overall point justice.
If I’ve been misunderstood, then it’s important to clarify further.
If you’ve been misunderstood, it’s important to know why you’ve been misunderstood, and that involves listening more, not talking more.
Most people seem to have understood me, and for those who haven’t, I’ve clarified. I am listening, but also responding.
It’s very hard to tell that you’re listening. Maybe that’s something else you can work on, I’d be happy to provide feedback so you can help people feel heard and included.
I don’t really like the condescension in your tone, it leads me to believe your advice wouldn’t be very helpful in making people feel heard.
Bro, if we’re talking about convenience tone, you’ve come off like that from the start with people. I don’t think you meant it, but you sounded very “holier and more socially enlightened than thou”, especially when you doubled down on explaining things rather than like, trying to understand what they were saying.