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.
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.