Back then the ideological split inside american settlers was between actively killing all natives or putting them into reservations to left them naturally die off over time - as they were “evolutionary obsolete”. In fact the bourgeois revolution of the american landlords was started because the British tried to limit american settler expansion and the expansion of slavery into Creek and Chickasaw lands.
The idea of not killing off natives was never present in any large capacity in the early united states.
Don’t worry, we’ll put it in the textbooks 100 years from now to talk about how cruel we were
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”?
They did not control everything. New Spain claimed a territory from Anchorage to the Philippines to Georgia.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.”
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
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
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 🤣
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.”
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.
Some audiobook torrents on the US settler colonial project:
I’m gonna check this out
How is this a meme?
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
deleted by creator
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”
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.
What is this supposed to mean? Are you insinuating that the genocide of palestinians or native americans is trivial?
The past can’t be changed but we need to be aware of the atrocities of the past. But now it can be prevented and something can be done to stop it but world powers are sitting on their asses to fill their pockets. We should be learning from history not repeating it.
The ambiguity of the meme format makes it seem like rage engagement bait
But now it can be prevented and something can be done to stop it but world powers are sitting on their asses to fill their pockets. We should be learning from history not repeating it.
If you don’t see how both of these western settler colonial projects are linked, then I’m sure you haven’t learned from history. The fact that many westerners are equally ignorant is why we’re repeating it in 2025.
