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.”
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.
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
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.
(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.”
Reclaiming stolen land is not ethnic cleansing.
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
also
(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.