The American media loves saying that, but does it really have a right to exist? Does an apartheid colonizing regime have the right to exist in someone else’s land?
The American media loves saying that, but does it really have a right to exist? Does an apartheid colonizing regime have the right to exist in someone else’s land?
Decolonization and mandatory re-education of settler-descent persons is really the only sane answer. I could be saying a half-dozen more overtly ghoulish things; but the first step of least harm is a ceding of power and privilege from the colonizers to the colonized, and education as to the fuckery that this country-- and as a result, Israel-- perpetuated to come into existence, and why what they did is an aberration.
Who is included in the colonized and colonist categories in this sense? All “white” people? All white passing people no matter background? Recent (last 50 years) migrants of all races?
What would the differentiation be, and what is the line in the sand? This doesn’t seem to be nearly as cut and dry as “Isreali vs Palestinian”.
The differentiation is “can we trace your geneaology up to a slave owner, or further up to the pilgrim ships”. There’d need to be a party apparatus for this sort of records-checking; but I imagine in this day and age, there’s likely a technological solution for this that I’m not immediately landing on. Beyond that, I’m not above the idea of re-educating anyone who’s ever flagged themselves “Caucasian” on a federal census; but the priorities are ‘do you have slave-owner in your blood’.
That does seem like a good criteria, but that is an extremely small and limited amount of people. Slave owners were by far concentrated in the South, and only the ultra-wealthy could afford to own slaves to begin with. It was only a 1-2 percent of people owning 95%+ of all slaves. As most free people in the South, white or black, were themselves near destitute and extremely poor.
Plus records of that would be difficult to work with, yes a direct relative would be an easy find, but we would go after someone for their great great great great great uncle twice removed owning slaves?
Also the Caucasian label is itself extremely tenuous, as you would catch the decent majority of slavs, turks, some arabs, Romani, and a whole hell of a lot of bizarre and “non-white” groups by going after the Caucasian label.
Plus then you run into the problem of a decent chunk of people being mixed, meaning no single label would work well for them, or you could have a family where one partner could have had a slave owning ancestor, while their partner had a ancestor who was a slave, and one of their children is extremely dark, while one of their siblings could be much lighter, and then another that’s white as snow. There would be an absurd amount of unique scenarios you would have to grapple with, this is just one.
Is it such a sin to want to see those who self-identify a certain way educated on the baggage they’ve associated themselves with? You raise fair points on the concept of mixed families; but beyond that, while self-identification is fine and all, I see a use case for the education.
But its not really “self-identification”, its not really a personal choice is it? You can’t just self-identify as another ethnicity, race, or background, and most people don’t give theirs a second thought.
Education should just be done overall. I just don’t see the point in otherizing and targeting certain groups on factors such as race, sexuality, ethnicity, or background, barring other overt reasons. I’m definitely not defending racist white chuds and they’re the first ones that could use reeducation, but it just feels like belief and views should be a primary concern. I’ve met plenty of gusanos, extremely out of touch extremely wealthy minorities, and people with racist families who grew beyond that. It just feels the main separator is class and education more then anything.
Again, going back to it, dividing a clean cut colonizer and colonized just seems to be near impossible in the United States. It feels like other factors should be taken into account first.
I fully agree, and I feel the logic follows that the only actual path to peace for Israel/Palestine is a sort of de-Balkanization, a one-state solution where the one state in question can’t be Israel or Palestine.
Naive. It is naive to think that the Zionists won’t take and take and take until they’re all that is left– exactly in the example of the crackers. Colonialism is a cancer, and your treatment plan is to just let it ravage the region-- and if this is really the only path of peace, then maybe the conflict deserves to flare up from the Palestinian side, with just as little mercy as the Zionists show them.
I feel like this admittedly old but still very relevant piece by Edward Said makes some good points. Notably:
and
people rented slaves, and for the purposes of this discussion, that should be at least partial credit for “owning”
Sure, but how in the world would you ever prove that? I doubt less then 1 percent of the receipts from those transactions survived.
land ownership would be easier to find records for and is probably a decent proxy.
if the other person’s “reeducate anyone who checked the caucasian box” idea is too extreme, maybe a compromise could be reeducation for anyone defending the use of confederate symbols.
Yeah that last bits fine. But land ownership seems a bit extreme, again, just owning land doesn’t signify anything.
owning land in a settler-colonial slave society sure fucking signifies something. holy shit dude
How do you envision this?
They can either give it up peacefully, or we can get into some Greenwood, into some Watts shit again. Would I rather see a ‘peaceful transition of power’ the way the crackers think their ‘democracy’ works? Of course. Am I really that naive, though? Hell fuckin’ no. I might’ve been born at night; but it sure as hell wasn’t last night, and when I balance out my scales, the weight of a settler life does not mean HALF as much to me as a life of one colonized.
So in the face of that, and a country in which we cannot live with these crackers, cannot be safe around these crackers, cannot find the cultures, practices, and names that were stolen from us by these crackers, and cannot pursue our own self-determination around these crackers, what do you propose we do? Just sit here, lookin stupid, letting these crackers keep exploiting us, raping us, thieving from us, incarcerating us without cause, and eventually killing us?
They who? Capitalists? Politicians? Every white person, going by the poorly defined US definition of white?
By this point you might think I’m some lemmy-tier debate pervert, hampering endlessly for trolling. That is not the case. I’m trying to make sense of what the comrades over at the core envision their future struggles to be, because you know this is coming eventually over to my periphery.
Part of me genuinely does. The only reason I’m still humoring this conversation is because I recognize your username and have seen you about on this fed before.
I see a future in which we have to fight against all whiteness. In which the current-day clarion calls of the politicians and capitalist elites toward the populace to rally 'round in protection of whiteness itself are heeded in full. Every time you hear a casual “slava ukraini” in the west, you are hearing the reaffirmation of solidarity with global whiteness. They’ve chosen their side and their praxis.
They’ve started imprisoning our forefront activists again in attempts to shut us up, looking at what’s been done to the Uhuru 3, and the RICO charges filed against anti-Cop City protesters. They’ve already started, and the “White Lives Matter” movements are gaining steam hand-in-hand with the Banderites nourished by the Democrats. This will not end cleanly, and frankly, I’d say it lost the chance to end cleanly years ago.
Just like it has for Palestine.
I think we can look at the Cuban revolution for some answers. They started building their socialist project, and the opponents of that basically self selected. The ex-Cubans of Miami seem in general much whiter than people in Cuba.
I don’t think there’s a reason to proactively define colonial lines or whatever (though I agree with @absentthereaper@lemmygrad.ml ).
I think a revolution in the U$ will have to be lead (or mostly driven by) colonized people, and decolonization will be a part of that.
The people who benefitted from Cuban plantations, and wanted to keep those benefits, weren’t removed in a process separate from the revolution - they opposed the revolution (and the restructuring that came afterwards), and were dealt with because of that.
See, now that is the logic I can actually follow. That makes sense. Thank you