I have read past Lenin, I was suggesting a primary Marxist theoretician because the argument you are raising displays a lack of understanding of class politics and economic relations.

I would indeed commit myself to reading a series of works if they were recommended by respectable and principled Marxists, you are simply a person on the internet but one I have yet to meet thus far aside from this conversation.

You referenced a few options which would suffice in your opinion to demonstrate your points, one of whom is comrade Fanon. I have been unable to locate a set of works by him thus far and am interested in reading his works. Do you happen to have a link for his works? As I see is this would benefit our conversation.

My argument was not a strawman, I was under the impression we were discussing native Americans (in general) not the tribal nations.

“You may as well say Marx is conflating all bourgeoisie with those who have shared interests and thus maintain it.”

…He does, it’s called the pette bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy. Although in some cases proletariat or semi-proletariat, these groups hold an interest in society which aligns with the bourgeoisie, the proletariat do not. This is a reason why I questioned if you had read Marx or Lenin.

“This is also a complete misunderstanding of the colonial context. Settlers do not need to be equivalent with the petite bourgeoisie for them to share interests that are incommensurable [sic] with the interests of the colonized. It is, in fact, possible, and indeed is the case, that the settler proletariat do not have a shared interest with the colonized, most of whom would not neatly fit the definition of proletariat. In fact, this is the primary point. The colonized have interests and these interests are shared and the interests are maintained through reproducing their livelihood in a way that is fundamentally distinct from the settler proletariat.”

This is you simply restating your understanding of the situation, however no underlying logic is explained how this is the case in your opinion. I have stated my case already, and I will add 1 thing I thought of since yesterday:

When America was created, the economic relations were of a slave nation, and the land was predominately the means of production. Then the industrial revolution came and with it bourgeois-proletarian relations evolved. This is an example of how the nature and indeed character of the settler state changed. The settler “whites” no longer entirely benefited from the economic relations, there was a middle class now who maintained the privileges allocated to the “white” settlers, and the slave class merged with other “white” settler families to create the proletariat. Yes the tribal nations remained this is true, but their relations to the new class of prols changed.

" in colonial contexts is entirely inextricable from that class warfare"

I agree however you blend the past with the present conditions and as I’ve stated things have developed since then.

You now: “No one ever said “all white people will band together” just like no one ever said all proletarians will join together simultaneously nor that no proletarians will betray their class nor that all bourgeois will use violence to defend their property.”

You last reply: “It is against the interests of the settlers, proles and all, because they have nowhere to go. They will all band together to oppress the water rights of the indigenous and they will import water from elsewhere.”

“A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.” - Wikipedia

This is not a strawman, it is a simplification of your argument, not a distortion of it. You are arguing from a position of race determining economics when it is the reverse. Race is not unimportant, however race relations do not determine economic relations, it’s the other way around.

“the settlers AS A CLASS”

As I explained, the settlers no longer constitute a class, but a nation with it’s own economic relations, of which the oppressed in that nation’ interests align with the interests of all oppressed peoples.

If I’m understanding your logic correctly, you seem to be centering your arguments around the idea of the tribal nations v the settler nation America, yes? My answer to this paradigm is the destruction of America and the recombination of tribal nations with the people who lived in America. I understand how this is not historically just however it is impractical to simply move 340 million people to satisfy this justice. This can be done over time however the destruction of America is needed not only for this issue but for the peace of the world giving it a certain urgency. So what is to be done to reconcile this contradiction? Are the tribes to wage a nation war against the people who still exist on the land of the fallen settler nation to take it over? Or would it perhaps be a better choice to work with the people who lived there?

Now comes the question of who should rule? Your position presupposes the natives should take back their land and rule it however they please. This is a nice idea however as Marxists we must insist on a class-based approach - the proletariat ruling both indigenous and settler-descended.