The point about respecting treaties seems to contradict a lot of the earlier points. An aspect of this is acknowledged in the first paragraph, but only partially.
I find it strange that the text opens with qualifications, apologism for, and a defense of the (white) settlor state. Is this based on a material analysis or is it an attempt to appease the ‘white working class’ or is it something else?
Asking black and indigenous people for input could be good. But without more context it could also be problematic if it relies on cultural brokerage and standpoint epistemology without / instead of material analysis.
The text seems to address colonialism but not imperialism. Maybe this should be implied. But I don’t know how the US question can be answered without also explaining what will be left for settlers if they can’t exploit the rest of the world or it’s internally colonised peoples (especially if the original treaty rights are enforced).
I’m not well educated on this aspect but I’m sceptical of the legitimacy of treaties signed with armed, violent, and manipulative Europeans. Maybe indigenous negotiators accept the treaties’ legitimacy but then I must ask, is it because they’re negotiating with armed, violent, and manipulative Europeans?
The founding of America was bloody. That bloodiness is ongoing. Accepting the first without acknowledging the second is going to result in some shaky conclusions, as those conclusions are at risk of being reduced to an absurdity.
I’m unsure what it means to ‘assume an assumption of intersectionality’. If this is a rejection of intersectionality or of the concept of racial capitalism, it seems flawed and may, again, lead to unsound conclusions.
I realise this is a summary of a pamphlet, so it may not include all the details. But if it’s an accurate summary, I would likely have more questions for the pamphlet itself.
The intersectionality bit is worded poorly, but they don’t appeal to a mythical white working class, an American working class rather. The pamphlet is just the supposed program for indigenous rights—how poor they are doing now, and what should be done after the revolution— it calls for renegotiation of treaties, reparations for damage from finance capital? (Does that not include primitive accumulation damage?), and others. The email is not a summary.
The point about respecting treaties seems to contradict a lot of the earlier points. An aspect of this is acknowledged in the first paragraph, but only partially.
I find it strange that the text opens with qualifications, apologism for, and a defense of the (white) settlor state. Is this based on a material analysis or is it an attempt to appease the ‘white working class’ or is it something else?
Asking black and indigenous people for input could be good. But without more context it could also be problematic if it relies on cultural brokerage and standpoint epistemology without / instead of material analysis.
The text seems to address colonialism but not imperialism. Maybe this should be implied. But I don’t know how the US question can be answered without also explaining what will be left for settlers if they can’t exploit the rest of the world or it’s internally colonised peoples (especially if the original treaty rights are enforced).
I’m not well educated on this aspect but I’m sceptical of the legitimacy of treaties signed with armed, violent, and manipulative Europeans. Maybe indigenous negotiators accept the treaties’ legitimacy but then I must ask, is it because they’re negotiating with armed, violent, and manipulative Europeans?
The founding of America was bloody. That bloodiness is ongoing. Accepting the first without acknowledging the second is going to result in some shaky conclusions, as those conclusions are at risk of being reduced to an absurdity.
I’m unsure what it means to ‘assume an assumption of intersectionality’. If this is a rejection of intersectionality or of the concept of racial capitalism, it seems flawed and may, again, lead to unsound conclusions.
I realise this is a summary of a pamphlet, so it may not include all the details. But if it’s an accurate summary, I would likely have more questions for the pamphlet itself.
The intersectionality bit is worded poorly, but they don’t appeal to a mythical white working class, an American working class rather. The pamphlet is just the supposed program for indigenous rights—how poor they are doing now, and what should be done after the revolution— it calls for renegotiation of treaties, reparations for damage from finance capital? (Does that not include primitive accumulation damage?), and others. The email is not a summary.