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.