Yes especially because the land that they do have is violated all the time for pipelines etc. The problem is that the meaning of this term is not definite or based in theory. For some, it could mean the expulsion of all non-indigenous populations which will never happen and would do a lot of harm if it did. For the NDN collective, it means the privatization of all public lands.
I won’t claim to know the best policy or slogan, but I think it’s important, when indigenous people in my country are only 0.7% of the population, to teach the masses that we share a common struggle. I think increasingly people can relate to the idea of having something that belongs to you taken away. My great grandfather was a farmer who ultimately had to lose his farm because government regulations made it impossible to compete with the big guys. So a slogan like “Land for all” goes a long way comparatively. This is only a part of the equation because there is still the issue of autonomy.
For some, it could mean the expulsion of all non-indigenous populations which will never happen and would do a lot of harm if it did.
Ive never heard anyone sincerely give this take.
My great grandfather was a farmer who ultimately had to lose his farm because government regulations made it impossible to compete with the big guys.
This is a good example of why Land Back, and really any slogan or platitude is limited. Comparing genocide to losing a farm is exactly the result because systems of meaning making translate these slogans into something they were not created for.
The rule of thumb is, if the actual original citizens of the land want it back, it’s a valid land back movement. If only an external government (especially the West) think the land should be back, it’s almost always bullshit.
I agree that liberals always twist land back, but I really do feel that the indigenous in Amerikkka and Klanada should get it back.
Yes especially because the land that they do have is violated all the time for pipelines etc. The problem is that the meaning of this term is not definite or based in theory. For some, it could mean the expulsion of all non-indigenous populations which will never happen and would do a lot of harm if it did. For the NDN collective, it means the privatization of all public lands.
I won’t claim to know the best policy or slogan, but I think it’s important, when indigenous people in my country are only 0.7% of the population, to teach the masses that we share a common struggle. I think increasingly people can relate to the idea of having something that belongs to you taken away. My great grandfather was a farmer who ultimately had to lose his farm because government regulations made it impossible to compete with the big guys. So a slogan like “Land for all” goes a long way comparatively. This is only a part of the equation because there is still the issue of autonomy.
Ive never heard anyone sincerely give this take.
This is a good example of why Land Back, and really any slogan or platitude is limited. Comparing genocide to losing a farm is exactly the result because systems of meaning making translate these slogans into something they were not created for.
The rule of thumb is, if the actual original citizens of the land want it back, it’s a valid land back movement. If only an external government (especially the West) think the land should be back, it’s almost always bullshit.