Why #LandBack Will Not Save Us From Climate Crisis
www.jaylesoleil.com
We need muscular, multi-racial, green left populism, not the racialist fantasizing of liberal identitarians

If you read the agroecology article I recently posted, you may be familiar with this link that was in there.

My rebuttal would be that the landback I support would be based on scientific socialism, and that national liberation would be most likely led by the most progressive and well educated (traditional and otherwise) people. New Afrikans will lead their own national liberation struggle and Indigenous people won’t be the only Decolonial nations. Not to mention that, as @ProbablyKaffe@lemmygrad.ml has shown before, most of the US is unoccupied and held for solely resource extraction. A minority of extractive corporations controls that land already, what would the problem be with another minority, with rightful ties to the land occupying it? Settlers and immigrants can have their own internal democracy, they just won’t have resource sovereignty.

  • QueerCommieOP
    5·
    1 year ago

    For context, this is how I found the link:

    While it’s easy as white people to push for Land Back and decolonization, pointing to how much of the world’s diversity is protected by indigenous communities, it erases any responsibility of colonizers and their beneficiaries to solve the problems created by industrial agriculture and indigenous displacement— specifically climate change and ecosystem collapse (read Jay Lesoliel’s piece on this subject here for a more in-depth analysis).

    He’s got a point that settlers have a responsibility to fight and sacrifice to stop the climate crisis as it’s our lifestyle’s and our leaders’ faults. Also the fact that First Nations, being victims of colonialism are not in the strongest position to help. But, of course, we Marxists with our philosophy of praxis understand this. I just think his further reading is sketchy (it’s good to remember he’s an anarchist, if on the reasonable side).