If you read the agroecology article I recently posted, you may be familiar with this link that was in there.
My rebuttal would be that the landback I support would be based on scientific socialism, and that national liberation would be most likely led by the most progressive and well educated (traditional and otherwise) people. New Afrikans will lead their own national liberation struggle and Indigenous people won’t be the only Decolonial nations. Not to mention that, as @ProbablyKaffe@lemmygrad.ml has shown before, most of the US is unoccupied and held for solely resource extraction. A minority of extractive corporations controls that land already, what would the problem be with another minority, with rightful ties to the land occupying it? Settlers and immigrants can have their own internal democracy, they just won’t have resource sovereignty.
negl this ‘essay’ just reads as another rehashing of already-cold potatoes. More “anything that makes the gentrifiers uncomfy isn’t real leftism” horseshit that reinforces my belief that settlers are fundamentally incapable of envisioning a collective, enclave, movement, or nation where they’re not holding the reins.
It’s funny how they’re always like “there are too many white people, we as a majority naturally rule.” You weren’t a majority when you started colonizing, and you won’t be much longer.
deleted by creator
I think its weird and wrong and disgusting to vilify landback. Landback is a very real and deserved movement, but as you can see, the author is criticizing the concept from a neoliberal perspective. Why are you supporting its demonization from a neoliberal speaker?
Of course Landback as a concept can be corrupted by capitalism, but so can almost every other concept, ideology, or thought process.
I don’t mean to sound too antagonistic, and I find myself agreeing with your general sentiment, especially your last two sentences. I’m just having trouble here.
deleted by creator
It really does sound like they just want to vote in the first Native American president so those damn First Nations people will quit complaining about the reservations so much.
He sounds more like he thinks most Indigenous people are backward and maybe they should get a bit more land, but it’s white people that should lead the climate movement.
Always hard to tell if these sorts actually want any change at all, or if they just want the status quo, but more lip service paid to minorities.
For context, this is how I found the link:
While it’s easy as white people to push for Land Back and decolonization, pointing to how much of the world’s diversity is protected by indigenous communities, it erases any responsibility of colonizers and their beneficiaries to solve the problems created by industrial agriculture and indigenous displacement— specifically climate change and ecosystem collapse (read Jay Lesoliel’s piece on this subject here for a more in-depth analysis).
He’s got a point that settlers have a responsibility to fight and sacrifice to stop the climate crisis as it’s our lifestyle’s and our leaders’ faults. Also the fact that First Nations, being victims of colonialism are not in the strongest position to help. But, of course, we Marxists with our philosophy of praxis understand this. I just think his further reading is sketchy (it’s good to remember he’s an anarchist, if on the reasonable side).
