This is a thought that I have been tackling for quite a while now, but in the event of a country or region undergoing decolonialization, how should settler populations, especially multigenerational populations, be handled?
For example in the example of Israel, once the nation is reestablished as a one state Palestine, what would happen to the settler population? Especially those that aren’t living or participating in illegal settlements or exploitation?
This question is complicated farther by multiple generations of people who were born in a location and have no ties to any other country or location. Those people don’t have anywhere to go and can’t be “sent back” to where they came from as they have no ties. For example if a person’s grand parents immigrated decades ago to a country as settlers, and then their children and then grandchildren were born and lived their whole lives in a location, what would you do with those grandchildren? You can’t just throw them back to the country their grandparents were from. This question is made even harder when the generations start spanning back much farther.
Another problem that I am running into is that many solutions including “leftist” ones essentially boil down to ethnic cleaning even if they do not say it outright. Or they completely ignore the question or resort to some fantasy scenario where the settlers magically disappear or all agree to move.
So how should these populations and people be handled?
Which “leftists” are you refering to actually call for ethnic cleaning? The anti-colonist posts that I encountered on social media call for ethnic deportation to make them suffer from the same refugee situation that they impose on others even when they did commit worse acts like mass murder and Indian Residential fake School enslavement and inheritance thief. I would say that the treatment of the free riding white immigrants depends on the change of their lifestyle away from parasitism or reparation.
This is quite literally what I was referencing. “Ethnic deportation to make them suffer the same way” is the literal definition of ethnic cleansing. It doesn’t just have to be mass murder. Mass expulsion is considered ethnic cleansing by international law.
Along with that, the very essence of what those “anti colonial” posts advocate for is reactionary and benefits no one. You cannot just solve a problem by “pushing them somewhere else and making them someone else’s problem”. That would only lead to refugee crisises, terrorism, or the risk of outside intervention since I doubt neighboring or other nations would take to kindly to the creation of a pointless humanitarian crisis.
Just to add, in long-existing settler-colonial countries, the lines between settler population and colonized population has blurred significantly. I never really see mentioned in these discussions that we continue to progress into a more multiracial world. Especially given the history of genocide in settler countries like the US, many native people are mixed with settler blood. Families are integrated, which opens up a whole other can of worms. Not to mention, there are populations that live in imperial core countries because their home countries were colonized by said empire. Do these populations deserve to be painted with the same settler brush?
In my personal experience, I’ve rarely encountered self-described Marxists who approach this topic with the nuance it deserves. Land back is a needed discussion that must be led by indiginous nations. But just vulgarly saying “Kick all the settlers out” like I’ve seen some on the left advocate for makes me feel like those leftists and their analysis are divorced from actual reality.
This is also not true, especially of the US and Canada. If you were going to make this point, you would be studying the Mestizo movements, which are material movements that truly blur the lines of settler and settled and create opportunities for what is called plurinationalism. But in the US, “blood mixing” (what a disgusting perspective) doesn’t happen that much.
Only if you assume what’s being discussed is an ethnostate, which is not what’s being discussed. That’s a European concept. Indigenous people are not interested in purity tests nor in one-drop rules.
Making it the responsibility of that empire.
There are no desserts. Settlerism is not a moral position. It is a material one.
Perhaps you are more worried about yourself than the analysis.
Indeed.
Perhaps you’re misinterpreting what is actually being said. You’re so focused on who “deserves” what that you might actually be missing the analysis, which is that settlers have no moral standing at all and that the indigenous bear no burden for their stewardship.
It depends. The bourgeois class? Yes. The working class? What has the working class done beside be born? We have no hand in this, and being idiots isn’t a crime although it is a shame for humanity. The bourgeois class continue and maintain the actions their class began. It is the system which demands these actions, the system which was created by and benefits the bourgeois class. The blood of the world is on their hands, not ours.
The working class is instrumental to settler-colonialism too.
Have to agree with this. The working class cannot simply wash it’s hands and say, ‘sorry guys, I was looking at my shoes when all that bad stuff went off; what did I miss?’
Removed by mod