I thought about it but I couldn’t think of a proper answer.
I guess it would make the most sense to let the colonized decide what to do with the colonizers, since they are the victims.
And what would happen with the people that were brought in as slaves by the colonizers?
I hope someone smarter than me can explain 🙏🥺
This is where international solidarity is required. The number of people colonized by Europeans is far far larger than the Europeans occupying the Americas. The indigenous nations of the Americas don’t need to worry about being a minority when the majority of the world recognizes their sovereignty and understands that the super structural basis for that sovereignty is critical to their own. The settlers in the Americas will be dispossessed by a coalition of the global majority, not by the slowly recovering indigenous populations of Turtle Island.
That is a nice fantasy but i don’t think there is any intention by anyone in the international community to get involved in internal US affairs. The US is a mess and most countries will probably prefer to just isolate the US so that it does as little damage as possible outside its own borders and let things inside play out to whatever conclusion. China’s non-interventionist model is likely the one that will prevail on the international scene. A revolution that only succeeds because of outside interference is not a genuine revolution of the people and will not have long term staying power once the outside support dries up. It is up to the people inside the US to liberate themselves. Only if the revolutionary forces on the former territory of the US can establish themselves as legitimate state governments with stable borders will other countries start trading and offering material support to them.
The problem is that you’re still operating on the false assumption that the settlers have a legitimate claim to be there. They do not. And the international community will trade with the black diaspora nation and the native nations and embargo the white settler nation. It’s not that hard, we’ve been watching the US do it to minortarian bodies for decades. The tables will turn because it is in the interest of the global proletariat to turn those tables. It is actually against their interest to allow the white settlers to continue their settler state and they will see to it that the pressures exist to dismantle white sovereignty.
The fantasy is that white people on turtle island are going to be fine because they are strong, they are dominant, they are numerous, and they can sustain themselves. The reality is that white settlers will fold pretty much immediately under the weight of climate catastrophe coupled with dedollarization. And the global majority will be very clear that to alleviate the suffering they will need to abdicate their manifest destiny and deny the doctrine of discovery and establish the new super structure that disenfranchises them. If they don’t, they’ll suffer total collapse.
Phrases like “legitimate claim” sound like idealism to me. Where does a “legitimate claim” come from? Is it just God given? Or is it not more realistic to acknowledge that the claim belongs to those with the power to enforce it? If the power of the settler state wanes and the internal colonies amass enough power to overthrow it and take its land then that is what will be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the international community. I would be very glad for you to be correct about the brittleness and weakness of the settler state. But that is an optimism that i find hard to share.
I incline more toward the pessimistic view that it will be a hard struggle and one that can only be won through making hard compromises and forming strategies that do not rely on the assumption of receiving significant outside support. I would also not rely on climate catastrophes and economic crises to do your work for you. People have a surprising ability to adapt to almost anything. They are creative and will find solutions and ways of keeping the system going even in a very deteriorated state.
That is why the revolutionary strategy must be proactive instead of reactive. We cannot just wait for outside factors to make the bourgeois state collapse. We need to be actively organizing and increasing our preparation and militancy, create political structures that can be turned into military ones capable of seizing and holding power when the revolutionary situation presents itself.
“Might is right”
“They conquered you because they are better”
Look at the state of settler politics, reason enough to continue working for our own liberation. Your pessimism in us is really just your optimism for the settler masses who have yet to lift their boots from our necks.
“It’s just mathematics” honestly shoots me up to 9 roentgen on a 5 roentgen meter. Fuck the math, I’d rather be liquidated than put the keys to my freedom in the hands of a settler.
what makes anyones claim to land legitimate? imma be real with u i dont think people who lived somewhere 200+ years ago have a more legitimate claim to a place than whoever lives there right now
Indigenous people didn’t go extinct or leave. They are alive across the continent in reservations and in settler communities. I’m not defending their right moralistically, it’s materially necessary. It is settlers and the horrible land use and environmental practices inherent to settler colonialism that is driving us into the ground. The only reason we’re still existing is because immense amounts of resources stolen from the global south. If we are going to face our great environmental challenges like climate change the people who have lived here for millennia who understand how this land works will need ownership of the resources.
sure but that doesnt make their claim to land where other people are living more legitimate the fact that just about all indigenous communities in north america were displaced doesnt give them the right to displace others or to rule over others
Have you not be reading Kaffe’s comments? Settlers only live on a very small part of this continent. Very little of this land is actually in use beyond unsustainable resource extraction, yet indigenous people are barred from living the way they have for thousands of years. Even where non-native people do live a lot of the space is wasted. Around one fifth of cities is just parking. People are spread out in highly inefficient and environmentally damaging suburbs. If public transportation and better housing and agriculture is invested in we have plenty of space even for a decent expansion of settler population with good living standards without expanding. No one needs to be kicked out. It is the settler colonial mindset of our people killing and deporting others that makes us think that if the other side could they would. In fact that was part of the original genocidal alibi. We also get into “white genocide” and “great replacement theory” territory. They are not like us, they are better.
the guy saying that white people dont deserve sovereignty and that democracy is bad? yeah i have read his comments. either way in many many cases the lands that indigenous people claim are (not coincidentally) where white people built their cities. so the argument that these claims do not conflict is just nonsense and granting these claims would mean displacing millions of people so again how can that possibly be justified.
They’re not saying that white people don’t deserve sovereignty or democracy, they are saying they don’t deserve to control this land just because they conquered it. Might does not make right. These people deserve reparations for the genocide inflicted upon them. We settlers should not have control over indigenous people and their land just because there are more of us. “To a former oppressor, equality feels like oppression.” You know how the Soviets got to implement their system in the land liberated from the Nazis? I think this situation is somewhat analogous. I have never heard a single indigenous person suggest displacing large amounts of non-natives. When the people at the Red Nation were asked about it they said they hadn’t even considered, people who ask questions like that are just afflicted with settler ideology. The same line of thinking that leads to great replacement theory. You say landback people want to take back whole cities, do you have any sources on this? All I can think of is First Nations people protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline as it runs through the land that should be theirs, is very damaging, and steals further from them. Another example of landback movements would be the “water is life” movement trying to take back water ways that are legally theirs to stop environmental degradation. I’m starting to think you’re debating in bad faith, with how little you seem to consider my points.
Colonizers do not deserve sovereignty in their colonies, even if they were born in them. Sovereignty meaning the exception on violence and the exercise of law. And I didn’t say they wouldn’t have democracy or representation, but that like every AES they won’t immediately have one person one vote, a political version of from each according to their works. Settlers, like AES workers, will have political rights in their workplaces and other revolutionary institutions that advance the interests of women, youth, LGBTQ+, artists, students, etc., and will have rights to manage their territories through democratic means. Their common interests with other nations will be decided through the decolonial state, where they will have representation (like how Taiwan province will be integrated).
We will only deport white supremacists, as necessary to defend the revolution. Though, land usage changes and conservation efforts will be strictly enforced, so many people will relocate into denser neighborhoods.
Honestly, from where I personally sit, they really don’t between the histories of Amerika, Britain, the Nordics, and everyone else who’s been raping, pillaging, and plundering Africa and the Global South for what feels like the past 500 years; but the aim is to be better than global crackery.
I’ve been watching your takes ever since these kinds of topics started being discussed here, and I’ve gotta agree with QueerCommie. I don’t think you’re arguing these points in good faith at all; for your username to be what it is, you peddle out the same kind of tripe that aggrieved settlers do, so understand that this is not an opening for dialogue, because I’m frankly not interested in dialogue with people who talk like settlers do. This is your wake-up call for self-evaluation and self-crit.