The drama around the new movie and the lead being Black and how crackers are crying over it has convinced me that rhe dissolution of white America, and all manner of Indigenous and Black and marginalized nationalisms are legitimate.

Reparations are legitimate. Black and Indigenous independent capital are legitimate. Black and Indigenous socialism is legitimate. Land Back is legitimate. Total defeat of white armies is legitimate. Expulsion of white people back to Europe and being excommunicated from the western hemisphere is legitimate.

The only thing whiteness understands is conflict and domination. whites deserve ZERO ACCESS to any form of land or resource or labor that involves any Indigenous or nonwhite effort.

I dont think anyone can convince me that white people want peace. The abused should be able to evict their abusers.

I cant stand it. whiteness is just insanity. Antisocial, desperately hateful madness. Its only defining characteristics is just what it supposedly isnt and what it is opposed to. A means of defining an enemy. That is all whiteness is. A retreat from humanity and a search for an enemy. Because if it didnt have an adversary, whiteness would have no concrete meaning.

If ANY self determination movement or anticolonial movenent has the ability to expel their exploiters and colonizers, not only should they, but they are obliged. And no. white people dont get a chance to understand it if and when it happens.

  • Marxism-Fennekinism
    8•2 years ago

    This is a good a place as any to ask the thing I’ve always been super confused on. Does landback mean the people descended from the settlers (even if they were born there) physically need to go? If not, what does it actually entail being done?

    In a country like Canada, where indigenous populations account for only 1% of the total population and white people are the majority, even assuming we got it so that all the people had 100% equal representation in a council socialist government (which, the current imperialist one isn’t even close being equal), the indigenous people would still lose out because they’re only a tiny minority. So what should be done about that? Should the legal system be set up so that indigenous populations always have priority in governance no matter what? Wouldn’t lead to massive conflicts and animosity between indugenous and non indigenius people and be massively unstable? Should non-Indigenous people de displaced instead?

    My family immigrated to Canada from China when I was a kid, am now a Canadian citizen, and I constantly wonder if we even have any right to stay here because it’s the colonial government that allowed all that and not the indigenous peoples, and we’re currently better off than the median for indigenous people here. So we’re technically settlers. If the answer is no we shouldn’t be here, then I would think my only moral choice is to leave in the name of decolonisation.

    Anyone can fill me in or give me some reading materials, ideally by actual indigenous people?

    • @chinawatcherwatcher
      9•2 years ago

      i still have a lot to learn about this, but here’s a great talk about the distinction between land and territory in an indigenous understanding. basically, territory is lines drawn on a map, but land specifically refers to the relationship between a people and the place that they inhabit, with an explicit understanding that their culture and who they are are directly affected by their relationship with the land. this tracks pretty well with marxism and a marxist understanding of history, tbh. i’m sure there’s more or better resources, like the red nation, but that’s all i have to share with you atm