I apologise if I say some dumb shit. I'm annoyed because these type of people really annoy me. I also need to preface that I know these people represent the absolute minority of decolonialists and that decolonialism isn't "evicting all the white people."
I'm also gonna start this with the epic one time I'm ever going to say this but I do agree with Vaush on the very specific point that things are never going to return to the way they were before colonialism. That there is never going to be a situation where natives are ever fully in control of their land again. That's not a good thing, but it's reality. Not in the USA, not in New Zealand, not in my country of Australia. Indigenous people in colonised countries like this are never going to regain full and total control of their land. It is not possible given the conditions of the countries, and is never going to be possible.
Not because I think colonialism was a good thing, but because I consider myself a materialist and materialism means analysing the material conditions of reality in order to develop ideas based on facts, not absurdist moral superiority and rabid internet dipshits.
This post on r/sendinthetanks was met with people who said something reasonable, and something I think anyone here who has the most basic understanding of materialism and material conditions will understand.
It was also full of people who parrot a point I see as so absurdly stupid that I need to bring it up. The people who believe that this mass eviction of 'settlers' is justified. In this case, came from parentis_shotgun on Reddit and was backed up with the same tired moronic points in order to refute the reasonable arguments made by people who believe that this mass eviction horseshit is both anti-materialist and morally unjustified. One of these points of justification for the mass eviction is:
> How decolonization proceeds is not for the settlers to dictate.
This point has been used many times as a "get out of corner free" card whenever someone is presented with two questions they clearly cannot answer, and are as follows:
- 1) Logistically, how are you going to deport 150+ million people who are deemed 'settlers' from the USA.
- 2) What justifies this position? How is it ethical or feasible?
These questions are hit with the previously mentioned response, which doesn't answer the question, instead basing their position on one of absurdist idealism rather than practical materialism. Since if you're advocating for the idea that 150+ million people should be deported, it's obviously hard to explain to some coping whitey how that's possible, so rather than actually doing so...they simply refuse to answer. They may claim that is because it's not up to them and rather the delegation should be directed towards an indigenous person. But that's a bullshit facade, in reality, it's because they know their suggestion is absurd.
They never explain the logistical reasons, they simply delegate this to some hypothetical indigenous person. This hypothetical indigenous person is, supposedly, infallible. Which is idealist bullshit. An indigenous person would fair no better at logistically trying to evict 150+ million people from the USA than a 'settler', nor does the fact they are indigenous, in my opinion, grant them the moral right to do so.
If you push for, advocate, or defend a preposed idea. You are expected to explain the logistics behind that idea. It has nothing to do with who would be responsible for the idea, it has everything to do with the physical impossibility of the idea being implemented. But of course, they know this, they simply choose to ignore it because it points out their absurd idealism.
It also rests on the inherent, I believe, flawed idea I mentioned idea that an indigenous person would be infallible and objectively correct when it comes to this hypothetical mass deportation. Nobody, whether they are native, a settler, or anything else, is infallible and should be followed based on their ancestry.
Furthermore, I do not think that the fact they're the descendents of colonialists justifies them being deported. And I do not think that someone people indigenous justifies them having the power, authority, or moral ground to evict these 'settlers'. There are ways to remove the privilege of these 'settlers' that don't involve shipping them off to Europe.
In pretty much every time it has happened in history, mass deportations have been horrific crimes filled with brutality. Whether it be the expulsion of Jews from countries, the expulsion of Palestinians from Israel, or even the expulsion of Native Americans during colonialism. I believe that this championed expulsion of 'settlers' from the USA would be just as bad. I'm sure that might be a controversial opinion, and I don't want to hear shit about "YOU'RE SAYING COLONIALISM AND ANTI-COLONIALISM ARE THE SAME THING!" because this has nothing to do with ideological reasoning.
I don't think there is a single moral justification that supports evicting 150+ million people from a country, whether it be colonial, anti-colonial or any other reason. That is such a colossal action of such drastic proportions that these people are championing under the masquerade of "if the indigenous people want it", which of course means they want it, since you cannot blindly support such an action without being complicit in it.
Humans are not weeds. We are not invasive species. Once humanity has been established, it cannot simply be removed like you would a pest. These descendents of settlers are established in the USA, New Zealand, Australia, etc. And they're going to remain there. Whether this is a good thing or bad thing is irrelevant, it is the facts we face, and we must base our opinions on facts, not chase alternative history scenarios.
parentis-shotgun so eloquently explained their nonsensical viewpoint in this section of a reply, the chain of which you can fully read [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/sendinthetanks/comments/pupqrf/psa_for_vaushites/he5d0ra/)
> It includes the return of stolen land, its up to them to decide what they want to do with it, not pearl clutching westerners like youreself terrified at the prospect of having indigenous people fully control their land. Who the fuck are you to dictate terms to them?
Full control does not mean that people can simply evict others on a whim. This neo-landlord bullshit is unacceptable. There will never be an ethnic group I believe are justified in holding the power to evict another ethnic group. There is not and should not be some equilibrium eye-for-an-eye bullshit. If the collective terms of this hypothetical situation where indigenous people have the capability (or even desire, since I think most native people are content with the settlers by this point and simply want equal rights) to hold authority over the people deemed 'colonialists' include a clause calling for their total mass eviction of said 'settlers', then their terms are wrong. Full stop. That is not dictating terms, and if it is dictating terms, then the right to dictate those terms comes from the fact that humans are not a fucking cane toads and that they shouldn't be forced back to Europe for the crime of descending from some colonialist. Instead I ask, who are *they* to dictate such terms? What moral justification do they have to do something that is so heinous?
That brings me to their second argument, and their usual answer to question 2.
> Were the indigenous people bothered when they were the victims of colonialism and theft of land?
Which is a fallacious argument. They are correct in that the colonialism of the USA, Australia, New Zealand, etc was incredibly brutal and a crime that has still not fully been fixed. But their use as justification for the mass eviction of 'settlers' is absurd. And I'm sure you all know why. Because crimes of the past do not justify crimes of the present. And hopefully we can all agree that a mass deportation of all white people from the USA would go down in history as an extremely brutal crime. And in my opinion, an unnecessary one. One crime does not justify another, this obviously works both ways. Just as it was a horrible and unjustifiable crime for colonialists to evict the indigenous peoples.
Deep down, again, I think they know this, they simply cannot accept that the viewpoints they hold are nonsensical and rather than swallow their pride, become zealous idiots hoping to have some form of moral superiority so they can blast everyone who disagrees with their anti-materialist bullshit.
We must not reject reality. Reality is that colonialism happened, indigenous peoples were the victims of genocides, and that we are living in a world where many nations are now mostly inhabited by the descendents of non-indigenous Europeans. This is reality, this will always be reality, and to suggest otherwise is to reject the material conditions of the world.
As a sort of general summary, I need to stress this. These people do not represent anti-colonialism, however, they do give anti-colonialism a bad name and are butcherers of Marxism with their idealist, anti-materialist horseshit. These people do not represent anti-colonialism. They do, however, represent anti-materialist zealots whose viewpoints are incorrect for the reasons I laid out.
In short, parentis_shotgun is full of shit. Apologies if I rambled a bit at times, I just really think I needed to explain why the people who support this proposal are wrong.