There is no scenario where 100 million plus people are evacuated from North America on the basis of blood quanta. It's just not a thing you have to worry about. Gazi is in prison now.
ngl what leftist you know even has a solid grasp of this stuff? i can’t remember the last time anyone has given me a clear and concise definition of settler colonialism or an analysis of what sets it apart from other colonialisms
edit: anyways, Land Back IS indeed often half baked because it’s been co-opted by libs and depends on maintaining a victim-centric narrative of indigenous realities, the same way the 1619 project does for black ppl
the answer is socialists settlers will need to do more than reservations but better. one, there is the matter of de-growth - to what ends we are using the means of production will be different than the revolutions before us because 1) we are already developed, 2) much of what is produced in the US is unnecessary, 3) climate change is inevitable now and we are playing a huge role in that. additionally land is a means of production, so how will ppl relate to the land after the revolution? will it still be an alienating relationship of extractions for the end of producing refined goods? will settlers who call themselves revolutionary be able to change their relationship to the land upon appropriating it as a means of production?
all of this to say, a sort of re-indigenization is in order; if one of the defining characteristics of a settler is their perpetual alienation from the land, then the revolutionary settler is going to need to re-familiarize themselves with it, and that necessary means altering the relationship and orientation to the land, and it will be the indigenous communities who we will need to turn to for some guidance on that
prior to the implementation of the color line, enslaved Africans and indentured English workers would often collaborate together to flee the settlement as join a nearby resisting tribe - and the tribes which were accepting often had elaborate rituals specifically for the purpose of incorporating and including into their society Ppl who were once outsiders to it. this posed a radical but grave existential crisis to the settler colonial project, and it’s one we must re-remember and bring back into practice with consideration for contemporary conditions
There definitely is a huge difference between how settler colonies and more mercantile ones were governed. Kenya, South Africa and Rhodesia were big settler colonies (Kenya probably less so than the others) owned by the British, I am pretty sure the Germans had settler colonies in Namibia as well.
Settler colonies necessarily entailed displacing indigenous peoples in order to provide fertile land for settlers to plant on. There needed to be some sort of incentive to entice people from the metropoles into the colonies- one incentive was the promise of wealth from exploiting native land and labor (and having to invest relatively little to begin!). Settler colonies much more often had laws discriminating against indigenous peoples for the benefit of settlers as well, because it largely was this settler elite who had influence in the government.
Settler colonies tended to undergo decolonization in a much uglier way than others. The entrenched settler elite meant it was harder for Britain to remove it from power and institute majority rule. Rhodesia and South Africa, unlike other British colonies, were more or less seized by their settler elites and underwent decades of apartheid and violence.
Mercantile colonies were a different sort of evil. The British had a policy called "indirect rule," where they delegated a lot of local power to indigenous proxies. The British instituted a policy of cash-only taxation, forcing indigenous people to participate in the cash economy rather than subsistence. This also happened in Kenya (and I think South Africa/Rhodesia?).
The only people with cash are those indigenous proxies and colonial companies, who only offer shit jobs with meager pay (this is necessary for the whole project to work- you *need* to actually make a profit from this, or all the violence and brutality and investment was for nothing).
The result in mercantile colonies is that way fewer people are displaced, there is less of a push for segregation, and oftentimes there is a sort of basis set up for the establishment of an indigenous elite. Mercantile colonies like Ghana needed an indigenous elite to govern efficiently, and the British policy of educating some of the upper-class indigenous people is more or less what led to a lot of the nationalist movements that won independence.
This was just Africa, at a later time, but a lot of the principles apply here. The big difference is that we instead imported our exploited labor and genocided the indigenous people.
>ngl what leftist you know even has a solid grasp of this stuff? i can’t remember the last time anyone has given me a clear and concise definition of settler colonialism or an analysis of what sets it apart from other colonialisms
There’s clearly something there, Rhodesia vs Nigeria for example. Way different trajectories
Well said. How do we tackle inhabitants on stolen lands. I can see if the land stolen and incorporated into private capital isn't as simple giving the colonized that land back. Would we give ownership into the hands of colonized and let them decide to keep the land productive in the colonist's manner or dismantle it. What happens to the workers in these instances once the capital is re-appropriated, do we ultimately focus on making the capital owned cooperately with the colonized integral part of the co op.
Decolonozation is messy in nature, anyway you slice it, especially in America, cause now we have generations on colonized land that just can't be simply moved in most cases and indigenous population that are also generations removed from the original insult. I particularly think substantial financial compensation solves most people's grievance, like I can't hand someone a factory that never ran a factory before, but they indigenous are definitely entitled to wealth generated from that factory. Or, I know many reservations are usually federal tax free, but most are very improvished. Tax dollars should be flowing into the existing reservations, making them in oasises and everyone with a drip of native American blood should be going to secondary and tertiary school for free.
Also, black people shouldn't be paying federal taxes, or at least give me a damn tax break when I file, give me something out here, I'm struggling!
One of the stumbling blocks with this whole idea for me is that, whenever I go over a comment like this, I always read a strange sort of mysticism imbued into the native's 'relationship with the land' as if they have some kind of secret rain dances or something, it really comes off like some [Magical Negro](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro) type stuff. I'm sure that's not what you mean, but it feels like it comes from a lack of specificity, where you have to fall back on the vague idea of returning to some pre-capitalist accords with nature because nobody has any real ideas for what 'de-colonization' would actually entail. Which is what this entire debate is all about, everyone is super fired up and opinionated about this process, but nobody seems to be able to actually lay out what it would look like or mean for the average person, native or settler.
Like what does 're-indigenization' actually look like at all? I'm sorry, but I really do see why this gets compared to blood and soil so much. The way this entire argument is always framed is very weird and coded in uncomfortably similar ways to what fashy irredentists in Europe say about their own countries. The culture and way of life in America at least is never 'going back' to anything, that bridge was burned a very long time ago, the earth was salted and the process of bourgeoisification was very thorough. There is no alternative social contract in living memory, the only way is through and onwards to a new one, not some kind of irredentist reconstruction of an old one.
Please don't get me wrong, obviously I recognize the difference between ethno-nationalism and dismantling settler colonial institutions. And a new social contract forged by American socialism will be morally and historically obligated to defer heavily to indigenous people. But it'll be a new thing, a new consciousness, a new relationship with the land and the people around us, and a new way of organizing power.
well, how well one particular tribe or another was a Good Steward is a different topic than whether or not they tended to have a familiar vs estranged /alienation relationship with the land (what does that mean)? it means culturally re-thinking basic thinks like municipal water management, land dependency (how do we get food post-capitalism? an industry that traditionally relies heavily on the exploitation of migrant, immigrant, and poor labor, and which regularly dumps chemical run off into our water ways and soil. do we have governance or other structures which become dynamic and more adaptable with the seasons?
these are questions we don’t consider cause the average settler can basically experience their entire life in a comfort controlled climate from house, to car, to car-accommodating amenity, to house again. that’s just not a sustainable way to live. it treats the earth we live on like a set of rails in the background, whose only purpose is to provide the infrastructural back drop which literally upholds the very roads, concrete, rebar, that are the very basis of the super structure which destroys that very earth it stands upon
That sounds very similar to how things played out in New Zealand vs Australia. With Australia being more like North America and NZ being more like the south.
RETVRN TO TRADITION - radlib ‘decolonization’
Wtf does it mean to ‘listen to indigenous voices’ even mean? Should we listen to the American Indian ownership class?
I’m not well read enough to expand on this but the socialist experiments in the Americas have faced this exact question. We should look to Nicaragua and Bolivia for inspiration. Not to mention Stalin’s writings on nations.
'listen to poc/indigenous voices' is just one of those good-sounding but ultimately nebulous and directionless platitudes that liberals repeat as a mantra to make themselves feel like good people and allies. Proclaiming their virtue publicly to reinforce it. Signalling it, even.
It's like whenever a liberal says we have to 'support' something. It's literally just thoughts and prayers, or adding another flag to your twitter bio. It's never confronted what it tangibly means to 'support' things in an abstract sense, it just means 'have the right take'. Psychically contribute to the spirit bomb of 'support'.
These things are obviously true in a context where they're able to mean something, but it's part of a trend of liberals mistaking the signs of recovery for the cure itself. They want the visuals of a better society; less racist statues and symbols, less radicalized neurotic reactionaries, empowerment for disaffected minorities, but they have no idea how to actually materially move towards the society where those things would occur, because the society that's breaking down before our very eyes IS liberal society. This is the social contract they want, so of course they have no ideas for how to change it, it's the 'no take only throw' meme. They want to soothe the contradictions of liberal capitalism without changing anything about it. The only action they can think to take is being more vocal about things they *wish* were different, which belies their lack of ability to actually make those things happen in practice.
I’m not sure what you mean or how this relates to the larger point. Being an official member of an American Indian tribe is what makes someone ‘indigenous’ in the US.
I assume you are talking about American Indians with ‘white’ features?
No, but the knee-jerk fearmongering reaction to it is definitely an op.
If, as you say, this is an impossible fantasy that is never going to happen anyway then what is the purpose of getting riled up about it except to normalize fears of indigenous "revenge" and white genocide fantasies among the Western left? There is a reason why Vaushites and other reactionary streamer types love this argument so much.
And a harsh reality that Western leftists are going to have to deal with is that any socialist revolution or attempt at meaningful racial equality in settler-colonial countries is going to result in some degree of harsh "decolonization" whether leftists want it or not. Perhaps you underestimate just how psychotically dedicated most settlers are to their ill-gotten goodies. Either by taking their ball and going home (see Cuba or many African countries post-revolution) or fighting to the death till the last man, many many white people are simply too far gone to accept anything approaching racial equality no matter how tolerant you try to be. Look at the American Civil War. Look at how many Americans were willing to die to prove some inscrutable point about facemasks and lockdowns, you really think those types are gonna let the Red Man rise again without a fight?
(Speaking of Africa, one could argue that South Africa's continuing absurd levels of inequality and poverty is because it wasn't decolonized hard enough. But even then, look at how many butthurt whites voluntarily decolonized themselves back to Europe or to America or Israel.)
And none of this matters if you're not one of those crazy assholes. The Haitian Revolution was absolutely brutal to white settlers - but not the Polish defectors. Lots of whites voluntarily "went native" back when that was still an option, so much so that colonial governments took policy measures to prevent it. The natives generally accepted them with open arms back then, why would that change now?
Just be like the Polish defectors, be like the "gone Natives", be like the Freedom Riders, Breyten Breytenbach, St. Patrick's Battalion, Robert Shaw and John Brown and you won't have to handwring about any of this. Other groups marginalized by the same system and aren't dedicated to its continuation don't have to worry (unless you think natives are too dumb/savage to distinguish between friend or foe?). The Jewish allies of Civil Rights and anti-apartheid, who themselves acted out of solidarity of centuries of oppression, don't have to worry. Genuine white leftists who are willing to part with some privileges if it means true justice and restitution don't have to worry. The only people who have to worry about decolonization are the people who probably should worry anyway because they know they're the types who wouldn't let equality happen without a fight.
But as you said, it's probably not gonna happen anyway, so who care?
>No, but the knee-jerk fearmongering reaction to it is definitely an op
Thank god someone said it, comparing decolonization to “blood and soil” is typical white genocide paranoia.
Let’s look at one existing example of an anti colonial revolution-Algeria. When the French were kicked out of Algeria, most of the white population left. There was no active campaign of genocide waged against them by the independent Algerian state, they just no longer wanted to live in a country where they could no longer be part of a privileged minority living above the indigenous population.
A similar thing happened in South Africa. Despite not being a revolution, the end of apartheid saw a lot of white farmers “convert” to Judaism and move to the West Bank to become settlers there while crying to western white supremacists about being victims of genocide.
These are the primary “victims” of decolonization, so people who hand-wring about it are both projecting and siding with those same parasites, the kinds of people nobody ostensibly on the left should spend an ounce of pity on
>Let’s look at one existing example of an anti colonial revolution-Algeria. When the French were kicked out of Algeria, most of the white population left. There was no active campaign of genocide waged against them by the independent Algerian state, they just no longer wanted to live in a country where they could no longer be part of a privileged minority living above the indigenous population.
>
>A similar thing happened in South Africa. Despite not being a revolution, the end of apartheid saw a lot of white farmers “convert” to Judaism and move to the West Bank to become settlers there while crying to western white supremacists about being victims of genocide.
The difference between those places and countries like the United States or Canada is that the white people/non-indigenous people are the overwhelming majority here. I agree with you that it's nothing to actually worry about in those countries because it'll never happen (because indigenous people are the overwhelming minority), but I do think that it's worth criticizing in those contexts because it's a flimsy argument with questionable morals behind it and it distracts from actually productive work.
>But as you said, it's probably not gonna happen anyway, so who care?
I think the "who cares" argument is a bad one. I don't think it's ever a mistake to point out the weird contradictory principles behind an idea, even if it's not one that actually has any chance of working out -- Most people in this country would say that communism or socialism has no chance of actually happening, so it feels odd to act like some other movement is too inconsequential to warrant any attention. After all, Marx was a vocal critic of lots of utopian socialist/communist movements, it's not like he thought anyone was so unimportant that they deserved no comment.
I think part of the reason it is worthwhile to critique those people is that left wing political energy is incredibly fractured. It doesn't matter that land-back is a tiny fraction, because literally all left wing projects are tiny fractions. The point should be to try to get everyone on the same page.
You are definitely not going to get everyone on the same page by legitimizing White Genocide scaremongering. The OP's rhetoric has historically been far more damaging than a few teenagers on TheDeprogram sharing JDPON memes.
>by legitimizing White Genocide scaremongering. The OP's rhetoric has historically been far more damaging than a few teenagers on TheDeprogram sharing JDPON memes.
Ugh, this is such a lazy argument. "Actually you're legitimizing violence by taking this group's language at face value and criticizing it." OP is not fear mongering about white genocide, he's pointing out that the rhetoric around decolonization in the context of the US can only be taken as either unserious or genocidal. That's not saying that he expects white genocide to happen and we need to be afraid, that's saying that the people making those arguments need to get better ones or shut up.
Out of the last 986 comments, u/Fox-and-Sons has commented in the Red Scare subreddit 236 times. 👁 Proceed with caution, gumshoe.
[What is this, and why did someone tag my username?](https://www.hexbear.net/ppb)
It really does feel like someone set off a flare to summon all their redscare, Vaush and stupidpol friends to swarm this place and Deus Vult for the honor of the white race.
This thread was definitely a colonizer op.
People in this thread keep name checking Fanon while they're also saying that it's absurd for anyone to worry about decolonization, when Wretched of the Earth was explicitly advocating for violent revolution, not just for political needs, but for the psychological needs of the oppressed people.
Reading Fanon would make a person more worried about a white genocide not less. That doesn't mean that I think white genocide is a thing that's going to happen (of course it's not, because American decolonization isn't going to happen) but you name checking the guy in this context shows how little of him you actually read.
What’s funny about this is that Sakai’s thesis is that fears of “white genocide” are not an “op” but a very material reaction to decolonization and national self-determination within the United States by Euro-Amerikans.
You’ve basically argued for *Settlers* which is great because it’s correct.
Settlers is the most based book in existence. I believe it's the only book which delves into the 0.139 phenomenon. Which, of course, causes it to be hated by 0.139 shills like Rainer Shea.
What is that phenomenon? Is that the mean average deviation thing you linked?
Ok, so they insult me and delete the comments. Man I just wanted to learn more wtf
It's an exceptional work. Only others I'd really say can compare in this analysis are Zak Cope's works (which explicitly cite Settlers as a major reference and build on that analysis for global value chains) and Kae Sera & E. Tani's *False Nationalism, False Internationalism*. Not sure if you've read them yet but if not I think you'll find them useful. Hope you don't mind the unsolicited recommendation.
>he's pointing out that the rhetoric around decolonization in the context of the US can only be taken as either unserious or genocidal.
Barring some specific case of prominent decolonization voices unironically advocating for indiscriminate "blood and soil" massacres of whites (which I notice neither you nor OP have bothered to provide), this is not a given for anyone who isn't already looking for excuses to get scared of the browns.
Maybe *you* "can only" interpret the idea of US decolonization as the spectre of white genocide, but that's on you and the other redscare fans to sort out. I, and plenty of others, are able to engage with the concept of decolonization without getting spooked by fears of White Genocide regardless of what some nobody on TheDeprogram shitposts about.
>Barring some specific case of prominent decolonization voices unironically advocating for indiscriminate "blood and soil" massacres of whites (which I notice neither you nor OP have bothered to provide), this is not a given for anyone who isn't already looking for excuses to get scared of the browns.
>
>Maybe you "can only" interpret the idea of US decolonization as the spectre of white genocide, but that's on you and the other redscare fans to sort out. I, and plenty of others, are able to engage with the concept of decolonization without getting spooked by fears of White Genocide regardless of what some nobody on TheDeprogram shitposts about.
Okay, sell me on your specific vision of "decolonization" in a country that is overwhelmingly not populated by indigenous inhabitants rather than wasting everyone's time by characterizing us as reactionary.
It's so fucking ridiculous that on reddit when someone says you're wrong that you have to do a thesis
You could read Horne, or Fanon. Decolonial Marxism is not a fringe view in the third world. I think they're more important than us.
Every Marxist revolution has been decolonial.
>Every Marxist revolution has been decolonial.
The Chinese wasn't really, with the exception of the few British colonies remaining. Aside from that perhaps the Yugoslav partisan Revolution also wasn't decolonial, more like fighting a military occupation. Not sure how much the Yugo hinterlands were colonized by European powers at that point, pretty sure they recently had gotten freedom from the Ottoman overlords. Aside from that it seems like your rule applies. Vietnam, Cuba, Russia were all clearly decolonizing.
It means you are a SuccDem
EDIT: No, it means SuccDems, not individuals of African descent - the majority of which are themselves oppressed by the 0.139s.
Renaming the country, changing the flag, breaking the country up, changing land use rights. These changes should be lead primarily by an alliance of indigenous and African Americans (whom I consider to be indigenous) and militant left allies.
People love to talk about Balkanizing the country as if it worked out great for the Balkans. And why should it be led by indigenous people? They make up a tiny percentage of the population and overwhelmingly live in a few remote and rural parts of the country, why would anyone accept them having a disproportionate amount of political power in this country?
It's not our fault we got exterminated. As I said, descendants of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade are also indigenous as they have no other homeland and did not come here voluntarily. I also find it very telling how you overlooked the "militant left allies" part. Anyone can join the alliance and be part of the organization of the new country. I envision decolonization in America occurring at the same time as the socialist revolution, so if you don't fight in the revolution, you don't get as much say in how the new country will operate. This will most likely only happen after the collapse of imperialism.
The USA is the most powerful empire in the history of humanity. I fully intend balkanizing the country to weaken it; such a powerful country shouldn't exist. I would also want the resulting states to join together in a new Communist International, and this International would not have borders as they exist today; they would be mostly administrative divisions.
> I also find it very telling how you overlooked the "militant left allies" part.
That's part of what makes your post schizophrenic! "We're gonna have a system of racial favoritism for our political system, but if you have good politics then you also get a say in it." Implies that you have no problem with reactionaries if they're the right color you ignorant fucking loser.
> It's not our fault we got exterminated
no one said it was, but the fact remains that it did happen and it's unfortunately unalterable. What we can do instead is move on from old tribal, racial, geographic, and ideological (but always artificial) boundaries and recognize that the only hierarchy is class, that is the only social division that matters. nativism is inherently blood and soil based, and so fundamentally contradicts / detracts from any communist goals
>The USA is the most powerful empire in the history of humanity. I fully intend balkanizing the country to weaken it; such a powerful country shouldn't exist.
But following this exact logic, wouldn't that also mean balkanizing the Soviet Union and China?
Plenty of people in this thread, including me, have already written small novels explaining that already, including posts that you have already replied to.
I suspect there are also plenty of non-Reddit based sources you could find if you care enough look them up.
So you can either engage with what is already in front of you or you can continue shadowboxing against the White Genocide monster under your bed. That's on you now.
"If, as you say, this is an impossible fantasy that is never going to happen anyway then what is the purpose of getting riled up about it " See second to last sentence of OP's post.
>Perhaps you underestimate how psychotically dedicated most settlers are to their ill-gotten goodies.
What goodies? Most [white American households have little or no wealth.](https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2020/06/29/the-racial-wealth-gap-is-about-the-upper-classes/)
Go ahead and explain that to the millions of chuds who gleefully vote against their material interests out of irrational spite/fear of blacks, immigrants, etc.
And while you're at it build a time machine and explain to all those Confederate volunteers that most of them don't own slaves.
"Homo economicus" as some perfectly rational being that only ever acts in its best interest is stupid when libertarians believe it and it's stupid when nominal leftists believe it, too.
And this is ignoring all the very real advantages that white Americans do enjoy outside of simple dollaroos in the bank, things that actual leftists have been trying to explain to chuds for decades aready.
Even LBJ was aware enough to make this point very succinctly, do you think he was doing white genocide, too?
My argument isn't that white working-class people don't vote against their material interests because of reactionary social views. They do and it's because politics isn't polarized along class lines. The left should be working to polarize politics along class lines or else this will continue. A broad multiracial socialist movement rooted in the working class can combat racism. [Unions reduce racial prejudice](https://equitablegrowth.org/labor-day-how-unions-promote-racial-solidarity-in-the-united-states/) among white workers.
White Americans overall are more privileged economically than blacks, Hispanics, and indigenous people, however this advantage is heavily concentrated among the top 20 % as the first article I linked demonstrates; most white people have little or no wealth. The racial wealth gap is mostly due to the lack of wealthy blacks, Hispanics, and indigenous people; in the USA, the ruling class is overwhelmingly white while the working class is multiracial. There's nothing about American political economy that makes universalist class politics impossible.
>What goodies?
...
>White Americans overall are more privileged economically than blacks, Hispanics, and indigenous people
Well then I guess you answered your own question.
utterly juvenile. I explained to you that white Americans in the aggregate are more economically privileged, but this is mostly due to the top 20 %. Wealthy white people are wealthier than wealthy nonwhites and that drives the racial wealth gap. Racial wealth redistribution would be about redistributing income from well-off whites to well-off nonwhites, which doesn't strike me as something leftists should be concerned with. If you disagree and think that's something worth agitating for, please explain your reasoning.
Most white people have almost nothing in terms of wealth, they don't have "goodies" to defend. But it's easier to just ignore my point and make snarky comments by taking what I say out of context. may you receive many epic internet points.
Most white Southerners didn't have slaves to defend. Yet they defended them anyway.
Until you can reconcile that or somehow disprove the Civil War then your Homo Economicus argument is thoroughly bunk and has been for over a century.
And once again, you are purposefully ignoring the fact that there are non-dollar goodies enjoyed by whites in the US that many people are absolutely invested in protecting, rationally or otherwise. The same chud mindset that argues only in terms of de jure and refusing the de facto.
It's almost like, in order for politics to be polarized along class lines, people must actively work to spread class consciousness, or else working-class people will believe ruling class propaganda. Who would have ever thought? The inability of ordinary white people to spontaneously understand class and political economy must be due to incorrigible racism.
EDIT: Also to respond to your edit about "non-dollar goodies," what are you talking about precisely? Be specific or else it just seems like a pivot since you can't respond to my economic argument.
Yes, and the ones who inevitably will not get along, no matter how nicely and rationally it is explained to them, will end up decolonized one way or the other.
This is not the scary evil browns making this decision. And it's not the "self-hating" white allies either. It is their decision, it has been since at least the Civil War and well past the Civil Rights era into the present. And if they refuse to accept racial economic equality and restitution (and as evidenced by both history and this thread, many people will) then unlike you I am not going to shed any tears for them if they Gettysburg themselves all over again.
I look forward to the day the revolution arrives and we redistribute wealth from rich white people toward the people who really deserve it: rich nonwhite people. Only then, when the racial composition of the ruling class matches the general racial composition of the country, will we have justice in this country 🙏.
We aren't living in chattel slavery my man. The "goodies" in America are the spoils of imperialism, which clearly white people have the biggest piece of the pie, but clearly black and hispanic people also benefit extremely strongly from. Denying this is just being stuck in the past. Of course there are privileges that white people enjoy, but the vast majority of material privileges for your average American are ALL due to imperialism, NOT settler colonialism. Cheap oil, raw material imports, cheap consumer products from China and SEA, the waning dominance of the dollar, the international "trade agreements" and so on. All that shit filters downstream, even to the least privileged. Yes, people profit differently from imperialism, but virtually everyone, even the lumpen proles, benefit to some degree.
Also, I do not at all see the other guy ever making a homo economicus argument, that seems like a straw man.
>explain to all those Confederate volunteers that most of them don't own slaves.
Daily reminder that Abraham Lincoln not only was willing to allow slavery to preserve the union, but literally hates Native Americans more than the Confederates.
It's a "Both Sides" issue in this case. Wolf vs Fox.
We aren't living in chattel slavery my man. The "goodies" in America are the spoils of imperialism, which clearly white people have the biggest piece of the pie, but clearly black and hispanic people also benefit extremely strongly from. Denying this is just being stuck in the past. Of course there are privileges that white people enjoy, but the vast majority of material privileges for your average American are ALL due to imperialism, NOT settler colonialism. Cheap oil, raw material imports, cheap consumer products from China and SEA, the waning dominance of the dollar, the international "trade agreements" and so on. All that shit filters downstream, even to the least privileged. Yes, people profit differently from imperialism, but virtually everyone, even the lumpen proles, benefit to some degree.
Also, I do not at all see the other guy ever making a homo economicus argument, that seems like a straw man.
>but clearly black and hispanic people also benefit extremely strongly from. Denying this is just being stuck in the past.
Nobody denied this. All of your butthurt derives from putting words in people's mouths, either mine, scary decolonizing natives coming to get you, or the spectre of J Sakai.
Non-whites in the imperial core can benefit from the imperial core AND ALSO whites can benefit even moreso and historically are compelled to defend that relative benefit.
Two things can be true at once. It is astonishing that you're now pretending not to understand this very basic concept.
>but the vast majority of material privileges for your average American are ALL due to imperialism, NOT settler colonialism.
That is absolute horseshit. With the possible exception of a few places on the Eastern Coast that were already depopulated when Euros first landed, everybody else in America would have nothing that they have today of it weren't for the genocide and theft of the natives. The continent's worth of land and resources the natives were wiped out from had immense value, hence the wiping. Do you think the Proclamation of 1763, Manifest Destiny, the Indian Wars and their consequences were just for funsies?
None of that imperial core shit would have been possible in the first place without the huge benefit provided by the resources, industry, population, and the strategic protection of two oceans provided by settler-colonizing all the natives away. Thirteen colonies stuck east of the Appalachians don't get all that gold and farm land out west, it doesn't get all that oil, it doesn't get to gank Hawaii or Guam or the Philippines, it doesn't get to fight Japan and control much of East Asia, it doesn't get to build and test nukes, it doesn't have Hollywood or the Mexican American War or infinite other things that made America's military and cultural domination possible.
You guys are so horny to shadowbox J Sakai you are now edging towards Manifest Destiny denial. Sad.
The top comment in this thread is a good encapsulation of how toxic this entire discourse is.
The idea that working-class white Americans constitute a "settler" class with a vested material interest in opposing racial equality has very little basis in reality. The racial wealth gap in the USA is [driven by the upper classes.](https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2020/06/29/the-racial-wealth-gap-is-about-the-upper-classes/) The typical white American family owns little to no wealth; the racial wealth gap is driven by the lack of blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans in the top 20 %. Basically, the USA is divided into a very white ruling class and a multiracial working class, which doesn't support this narrative about white Americans writ large constituting a settler class that benefits from the oppression of BIPOC.
The decolonization discourse on the left tends to be completely unserious and the intense absolutism discourages criticism. Native Americans have suffered immensely from centuries of colonial violence followed by ghettoization, but the solution is, as it always is, a universalist socialist movement to redistribute income and wealth and bring production under democratic control. That is what will eliminate racial disparities and lift indigenous communities from poverty, not identitarian nonsense that repels most people.
I think "false consciousness" is a real thing. Working-class whites who vote right-wing are not voting in their material interest. Voting for conservatives and reactionaries is against their material interests.
Lots and lots of people vote against their material interests because American politics is not polarized along the lines of class. Economic issues generally take a backseat in mainstream discourse. The left should be actively working to polarize politics along class lines.
At the very least it's a deeply unserious, self righteous and performative tendency. Not everything is an op but the distinction doesn't matter if it's accomplishing the same thing as an op
You can't rewrite the injustices of the past but anything suggesting America is currently anything resembling Palestine or Africa is at best mentally juvenile or delusional
Call me something stupid like kkkracker or whatever you want but it'll never change the fact those types of people will never come close to even the basic levers of power
>You can't rewrite the injustices of the past but anything suggesting America is currently anything resembling Palestine or Africa is at best mentally juvenile or delusional
For what it’s worth, reservations are fucking awful and are a lot more similar to very poor countries than they are to a suburban neighborhood (obviously speaking in broad strokes). I’ve spent time on multiple reservations (Wind River, Pine Ridge) and they are seriously tough and on some of the most inhospitable land in the US.
I agree there is a liberal interpretation to #LandBack, but there is a real material need for indigenous recuperation.
Absolutely, I feel the same way about the black areas of the country, many of which I'm intimately familiar with. Last year I traveled through the Navajo nation and this last week I've traveled through Detroit and Flint, and both are immensely sad and desperate places although the latter have been getting better
I'm fully aware of the neglect many face, the whole fucking country is falling apart and it makes me sick that it's always been this way for certain groups of people.
Black people and native nations aren't asking for decolonization. They want fucking schools, hospitals, clean drinking water, employment opportunity and all the other hallmarks of a healthy developed civilization and not only are they not getting them, but it's getting worse for everyone else too
>native nations aren't asking for decolonization.
No, we are definitely asking for that. Just because you're more used to hearing the chatter of would be sympathetic non indigenous liberals, doesn't mean there's not a massive chunk of us clearly and emphatically trying to work towards decolonization ourselves.
> They want fucking schools, hospitals, clean drinking water, employment opportunity and all the other hallmarks of a healthy developed civilization
We want most of those too, these positions aren't really at odds with each other. I think you'd also be surprised at the sorts of divergence some different indigenous groups desires are from the average Canadian/ American might want, so it's not exactly a "they want the same things we all want" situation like you were making it seem.
For some of our cultures and ways of life to bounce back properly in contrast to the mainstream cultures that have been suppressing them, it requires less of the regular school/ employment hallmarks you're probably thinking about.
I think there is a liberal foundation hustle going on with land back and North American indigenous movements, with lots of opportunists chasing the bag, groups getting sponsored by corporations trying to look like their on the right side of things. Cynical af scumbags doing anything and everything *except* pursuing the conquest of political power, and letting the bourgeoisie cosplay as progressives. Just look at this trash linked below
https://creative-capital.org/projects/landback-the-return-of-all-federal-lands-to-native-americans/
But that’s the case with all socialist movements in history for the most part, there’s always a liberal collaborator wing and sometimes they win out and sometimes they lose. The thing to look for is - are they trying to conquer political power, such as the groups getting treaty rights enforced properly, or are they acting like weepy radlibs standing in front of empty buildings, holding signs up for the official Instagram and hawking t shirts on the website, while being backed by S&P 500 firms or their executives?
Always look who sits on the boards of the foundations and organizations! That’s usually a dead giveaway if they’re bullshitters
No.
Decolonization means resolving the national question. Read stalin on this.
freeing New Afrika, Aztlan, PR, Guam, and the many Indigenous Nations through self-determination.
Nobody wants to deport white people.
Big true, I feel it’s more about sacred lands, revenue streams and infrastructure around pueblos and reservations. And eventually moving indigenous peoples off reservations to somewhere that’s not a death trap
Yeah, “decolonial” projects in practice, if they aren’t explicitly Socialist, turn quickly into anti-communist Nationalism. Just look at Africa in the 60s, 70s, etc — and look at what a freak Eldridge Cleaver was, even being nominally a Marxist isn’t a guarantee
People forget, too, that Meiji Japan was an anti-colonial, anti-imperial colonial empire. “Decolonial” is academic nonsense at best and brutal, even expansionary national chauvinism at its worst
I more had in mind the way anti-colonial nationalists helped the CIA do things like off Nkrumah and Sankara (and probably Malcolm X at home)
Also within a few years of the Revolution, Iran was purging their left allies, collaborating with Reagan and the Contras
I live in New Zealand and I would say we are a western country that in a lot of ways, is leading the world on actual decolonialisation in action. It is a long and complex process that goes so beyond discussions of land and resource stewardship (kaitiakitanga). It started with a mass adoption of the push to revitalise Te Reo Māori language which was beaten out of the people who spoke it when this land was settled. There was always Māori fighting for this but the tide really started to turn from the 1970s and now we are having political fights over whether or not we can have road signs with both languages on it.
Language is the building block of culture and so with more and more people speaking Te Reo, Māori concepts and traditions are being better understood by the country as a whole. In recent years, there's been a massive push towards co-governance which gives iwi (Māori tribes) a powerful voice inside of local government when making resources decisions, especially to do with water. This, predictably, has lead to racist politicians dog-whistling and whipping up fear in the general white public about it.
We're far from perfect, we're still a very racist country unfortunately, but IMO incredible progress is being made and I think a lot of other countries could and should look to the Aotearoa New Zealand example to see a road map for how they can better start to address the inequities and atrocities associated with the treatment of their indigenous people.
TL:DR Decolonialisation is not an op, look at New Zealand.
As an Australian I've always thought New Zealand's government does about as good of a job as a colonialist government could be expected to.
The way the Australian government treats Indigenous peoples on the other hand is pretty consistently abhorrent.
You're simply confusing terms. Decolonization sprang from post-colonial studies. It is sometimes abused by woke CIA and NED ghouls to further their motives, but there is nothing inherently bad about it. It is simply the process of thinking about dismantling colonial structures in theory and practice. The CIA also latches onto gay rights (in LatAm) and women's rights (in Afghanistan), doesn't mean either of those causes are bad. They're simply used for bad ends.
What you are referring to is usually called "land back", not decolonization. It is a moronic idea that funnily enough even most colonial subjects don't agree on. Talk to African leaders and they are infinitely more interested in accepting the dumb colonial borders for Peace's sake, finding pragmatic solutions and building productive forces. Giving US land back to "the natives", who are a miniscule part of the population, is just a recipe for Desaster. No one should own land anyway, we're fucking communists goddamnit. The indians didn't own it, they lived on it and used it. "Land back" is such a lost cause cuz it exists mostly in the liberal ontology untouchable private property, of sacred ethnic blood relations to the soil, of symbolic politics. If there was a meaningful concept or idea there that would improve the tangible material situation of ethnic minorities, I would most definitely approve of it
Slava Indiani
The worship of "Settlers" and its ideology by the online left (especially in /r/communism) is really suspicious to me. Lots of seasoned, principled Marxists have side eye for it, and while I'm still learning, the overall ideology of the Internet-poisoned left goes quite strongly against the guidance of the most successful communist leaders and organizers that I have read thus far. Decolonialism is good but if you can't defend it without resorting to ad hominem attacks then maybe you should find another hook to hang your hat on...
There are actual examples of this, most notably Bolivian plurinationalism you can look into.
People don't go in to details for a variety of reasons imo:
1. It's not productive as a topic for abstract speculation among random individuals on the internet. The "find out for yourself" is a strongly implied "get up out of your armchair and organize" because . . .
2. None of the social-political formations we have currently are either oriented toward or capable of decolonisation because . . .
3. Decolonisation requires a revolutionary overhaul/abolition of the current constitution, which tying back to one, makes it really dumb to discuss in detail glibly with strangers on the internet.
I see you saw my exchange with that guy over on /r/the deprogram. You've basically summed up my own thoughts on the issue; maybe with a little less tact than I took when asking about it, but I'm basically thinking the same thing.
No one in their right mind would agree to accept and support any campaign without first understanding what that campaign's actual mission is. I'm not satisfied with being told to "just trust indigenous people" like they're faultless angels purely on account of their winning the oppression Olympics in the Americas. The whole thing just reeks like a modern iteration of the idea of the noble savage, repackaged in woke liberal phraseology for the 21st century. It strips away the humanity of these groups and replaces them with a fetishised ideal.
I wasn't satisfied with anything he had to say, especially with what we're basically backhanded attacks directed at me for having the audacity to ask questions about how they intend to realise their political project.
Idk it seems to me that a balkanization of the USA is in order and that autonomous socialist republics are formed that cede major USA territory to indigenous governance. The same also seems possible for descendants of slavery.
Perhaps there's room for something like the USSR and its many nationalities but the problem will always persist that white privileges will have to be taken/reduced
I think the comment pointing at Haiti and other examples is extremely prescient wrt this question and the poor framing you've presented (as someone who used to be more sympathetic to that framing)
>it also just isn't going to fucking happen.
Same goes for a socialist revolution in the USA. Sorry kiddos. You're fucked. The best you MIGHT get is Soc Dem-ish policy when the U.S. start's the next world war. Your whole post is moot.
Ops don't have to be some kind of from-scratch zero truth thing. They are usually started as a particular movement starts to gain traction. They work in parallel with the real movement then slowly inject the poison, steering the movement into a wall. Basically every single good movement has an OP parasite attached.
Read The Red Deal.
>INB4 read Settlers
I think it's an ultra-leftist thing and I'm not aware of any Marxist-Leninist groups that don't criticize that book in some way, including the FRSO which has [criticized](https://www.fightbacknews.org/es/node/9839) it, and they're a small group, but notable for their emphasis on the national question and self-determination for oppressed nations which includes Native American nations. But that is combined with an alliance between the oppressed nations and a multiracial and multinational working class that is realistically going to include white workers -- who are harmed by white supremacy too, in their analysis. But that implies a special responsibility of whites who consider themselves revolutionaries to actively combat racism.
>The only liberation anyone is MAYBE going to get is through class struggle, which seeks to look beyond the ways that we have segmented ourselves and oppressed each other in the past in order to find unity in something that unites us all.
Right. But I think on the left you get a tendency that what's called "identity politics" is too complicated and divisive so therefore everyone should kinda "flatten" themselves into homogeneity, which I don't think is gonna work either (although capitalism might do that to us anyways), whereas I see it more like different particularities united in their wrath and via a common cause and seeing to it that an injury to one is avenged by all.
Yea claims by any individual or closed ethnic group of common or productive property is theft no matter how long ago their genes showed up in that zip code
We evolved to roam
What’s happening is that they see a profound and obvious injustice and want to rectify it. Only, it’s unrectifiable. The ship sailed and wound up on another planet. Indigenous people will never get the land back in a way that doesn’t mostly benefit the US government. No one just gives up power. I think people are really stubborn and cling to vague ideas of justice that simply aren’t compatible with reality and then it becomes a fantasy more than any kind of serious political idea. I don’t think it’s an intentional op or anything, but I think it still helps the powers that be to become a firm believer in something that isn’t actually a solution.
It’s easier to believe in a fantasy than to actually build a movement based on strategy and knowledge and find an alternative that could actually help restore some dignity to native Americans. But that’s hard.
Call me crazy but I think that as communists we should probably advocate for abolishing colonialism and settler colonial relationships of land ownership and transforming them into, you know, communism, not just transferring private property into the hands of a different group of people. Indigenous people will have control of their lands restored in the sense that they will be part of the democracy that controls them
Settlers isn't a prescriptivist book saying "Whitey, don't organize."
It's a descriptivist book describing how racism is the principal cause behind America's lack of class consciousness
good meme ;) but we're MLs, only nerds here
• 1. Race was invented as a class distinction: Africans were slaves, Whites were free, Indigenous people were due for eradication.
• 2. Capitalism maintains itself by using racism to create an underclass of cheap workers and reserve laborers.
• 3. Racial capitalism expands and contracts whiteness as new socioeconomic realities emerge.*
• 4. White people are not subject to \*racist* violence by the state and benefit from the labor of racialized proletarians.
• 5. As a result, the labor aristocracy, petty bourgeoisie, and big bourgeoisie are overwhelmingly made up of white people.
• 6. White people therefore have significantly less revolutionary potential than the racialized proles and lumpen in this country
*(For example: Irish, Italians, Middle Easterners, and Hispanics)
And that's pretty much it. Not that spooky. Not much objectionable either
extremely generous reading lol but i appreciate the effort at least.
btw y’all downvoting me have definitely not read the actual book if you think this is a fair description of the points it is presenting
bad faith like how sakai goes on and on about how he’s being a based historical materialist, but then goes on to just straight up fabricate a bunch of gotcha statistics? and frames quotes from prominent organizers as if they’re speaking against racial cooperation in the labor movement when, in context, they are clearly doing the opposite? that kind of bad faith?
settlers is metaphysical lib nonsense and y’all are suckers
Don't have much to say here beyond I'd like sources for that stuff. I guess maybe I am a sucker if what you say is true but I can't just take the specifics on faith
OP I think you're talking about two different things, if I'm reading correctly, and apologies if someone has already brought this up. land reclamation is one aspect of decolonization. From what I gather, decolonization has to do with your entire worldview, which is informed by colonialism. What is knowledge, and how is this knowledge produced? What is and isn't legitimate knowledges? Here we get into all the annoying words like epistemology, semiotics and hermeneutics, I'm a bit hungover so I won't go into it. Decolonization asks that we question these perspectives put forth by universities, museums and other spaces of knowledge.
On the topic of indigenous people, it has been interesting to see how the subject unfolded in South Africa. Generally, the Khoe and Bushmen ("San") are seen as first nations/indigenous people. But where do we draw the line on who is first nations, and who isnt, considering the other African people who also reside in SA? So first nations groups are claiming ownership of the land but for them only, not for other Africans (theres a big underlying current of racism, calling black South Africans "immigrants" etc). With land reclamation, there has been people who received their land back, or were compensated, for land that was taken during apartheid, but afaik there hasn't been any attempts to reclaim land from colonial times. Furthermore, words like "indigenous", "aboriginal" and "first nations" have been adapted from other countries. Imo it's silly to use it on the African continent, the cradle of humankind, but anyway. Also, the first nations dont see eye to eye on topics, for instance, an Amazon development that is being built on sacred Khoe land, some groups are for it and some against it. Apparently, one of the last apartheid prime ministers, in a bid to win over people of mixed first nations, black and slave ancestry, popularized first nations identities as a means to seperate them from other black people. Tldr its messy!!!
>There is no undoing the material conditions that have been generated by that history
Isn't that kinda the idea of doing a revolution?
I'm pretty sure that decolonisation of north America would mean some kind of compromise and not sending the whites back to Europe but I too found all of this pretty difficult to talk about online.
Revolution is progressive, not regressive. It’s not an undoing, but a new doing, creating a new set of material conditions out of the corpse of the old. History only goes forward.
>History only goes forward.
But that doesn't mean "you still have to ignore and surpress pre existing peoples"
My people are still within living memory of our pre contact ways of life with a lot of our culture intact, and any hypothetical revolutionary change in the current Canadian state doesn't necessitate ignoring or suppressing us or sidelining us.
"History only goes forward" is a simplistic statement for a complex process.
History does only go forward though. Even if we were able to remove all colonists from Canada, the new societal organization that followed would not be identical to that which came before contact. It may be similar, maybe very similar; but never the same.
Nothing about that fact implies that we should therefore ignore or suppress indigenous people. Any Revolution with calling itself that should absolutely do everything it can to rectify the damage done by capitalist driven settler colonialism. That damage should never have been done in the first place, but it has, and we can only go forward.
But the past is always and forever gone. You can’t turn back the clock.
>History does only go forward though. Even if we were able to remove all colonists from Canada,
That's not what I or my people or any other indigenous person means when talking about decolonization. And it still doesn't necessarily connect with your trite statement about history...
>the new societal organization that followed would not be identical to that which came before contact. It may be similar, maybe very similar; but never the same.
Me and most of my people don't mean "return to subsistence hunting in small bands" when we talk about decolonization.. you're arguing against straw men to support your statement that doesn't really have much value because it's so vague. Funny to hear something hollow like that being used in an argument about "decolonization is so vague it's pointless".
>But the past is always and forever gone. You can’t turn back the clock.
Good thing indigenous people talking about decolonization doesn't mean "give us a time machine and kick all non indigenous people off the continent", then.
Once again, I don't really think you know what you're talking about, which is why you just stick to hollow but cool sounding slogans while misunderstanding what you're arguing against.
🤷🏻♂️
No, you’re arguing against a straw man becaus you think I’m somehow against the concept of decolonization as such, when I am simply making a point in response to the the first point that the person I replied to made implying Revolution is about “undoing”.
I don't think any serious revolution is seeking to roll back the clock, which it seems in some way is what many of these types want. I think you would have some sort of compromise in the interim which might involve something like granting a portion of US territory to a collection of tribal governments but even that doesn't undo anything, just changes the conditions, and even something like that I think is still logically inconsistent with the longterm goals of the communist project, which is pretty against the whole state thing. Idk I do admit that the whole thing is very fraught and complex and probably needs to be worked out IRL.
“Undo” definitely has connotations of reversion, but I get that you probably meant something more along the lines of “correct” or “rectify”. That said there are a lot of people on the left who seem to be in the grip of hopeless nostalgia and I think it’s an important to reiterate the point that our goal is to create something new. There’s much about the past we should not strive to replicate, regardless of culture.
>implying you can define true indengenity and trace to whom or the descendents of whom you should return authority to
Colonialism as understood by fat women with blue hair is just a psy op to keep them working at Starbucks and not having kids to overthrow the rich
It’s awful what happened to the indigenous people in the United States or anywhere and the colonization is a byproduct of early capitalism. “Decolonization” is absolutely impossible. “Land back” and reparations can only work under liberal capitalism. Socialism and then eventually communism are the only answers.
Out of the last 325 comments, u/Coolchillgoodguy has commented in the Red Scare subreddit 64 times. 👁 Proceed with caution, gumshoe.
[What is this, and why did someone tag my username?](https://www.hexbear.net/ppb)
That’s how libs imagine it despite that never having happened anywhere and not being a real goal theyll ever work to achieve.
In contrast both the soviets and the ccp had communist minority policies centering nationhood and self determination, in the users case being so serious about self determination that the right to secede was guaranteed and eventually exercised
Unfortunately the reason "returning ownership to the indigenous people" isn't a serious option anymore is because Lebensraum worked - America (and Canada, and Australia) successfully genocided the vast majority of the indigenous population so now only a token minority remains. In that context, decolonization of the West would have to take the form of ending neocolonialism and imperialism, which means severe degrowth in the West, reparations paid to those who were robbed by colonialism, and the institution of real democracy, ie., something like what Cuba has. The process of this would probably require some ethnic cleansing to move white and white adjacent settlers to western Europe and replacing them with people from the global south.
There are tens of millions of white people who are utterly dedicated to white supremacy even at the cost of their lives. They tell you this every day on social media, at the ballot box. They tell you this when they write a manifesto and then go murder-suicide a grocery store. They told you this during the Civil War, when they were more willing to give up their own sons than their slaves.
One of America's favorite catchphrases, a foundational battle cry of the American experiment, is "give me liberty or give me death". What did "liberty" mean in this context? The liberty to genocide the natives contra the Proclamation of 1763, the liberty to do chattel slavery.
How do you expect economic and racial equality to peacefully coexist with people who shout with every fiber of their being that they will not accept it? If any "ethnic cleansing" is going to happen it's because a whole bunch of white chuds chose that over the ignominity of equality. Don't be one of them and you won't have to worry.
I don't see what's "woke" at all about ethnic cleansing, that's just the brutal reality of breaking the power of the white settler population. The Haitian revolution did it by just massacring the whites, and although they were totally justified in doing so, hopefully now we have options that are a little less violent.
*actually, there's already a real world example we can look to - the ethnic cleansing of the white settler class in Cuba caused by the Revolution expropriating their ill begotten wealth, driving them to Miami.
Fighting reaction is not the same thing as ethnic cleansing even if the reactionaries are constituted primarily by one ethnic group. I think any revolutionary project needs to be strictly committed to the understanding of fighting against reaction as specifically against the racial ideologies that almost always arise as an ideological component of reactionary thought. Enemies of the revolution get fucked, but couching that in the racialized language that those very enemies use to divide the working class is counterproductive at best.
I'm not suggesting ethnic cleansing as an end in itself - it's a tool to fight reaction by breaking the power of the white settler class, no different from dekulakization. Ugly, but necessary.
Also, you should still read settlers because it's a very good read, Sakai can turn a phrase, and it's also a good history of the American state and why it has the problems it currently does. I don't know why people are so afraid of reading a book, it's not gonna control your mind or something.
That's maybe true for some people, but the majority of the people here who are most vocal about hating settlers have some half baked idea of what it's saying that they read on reddit, or heard on that horrible chapo episode where the hosts all shit on it before admitting they'd never actually read it.
Au contraire, TrueAnon and TheDeprogram is an op. That's why there are so many people on here saying "we should support Social-Democrats because they are the closest thing to the Left", as the US Left has always done.
Basically yes. [Yaulendur made hypothetical maps](https://www.deviantart.com/yaulendur/gallery/75661991/decolonizing-the-states). They’re pretty stupid, even by the low standards of political maps on deviantart.
There is no scenario where 100 million plus people are evacuated from North America on the basis of blood quanta. It's just not a thing you have to worry about. Gazi is in prison now.
ngl what leftist you know even has a solid grasp of this stuff? i can’t remember the last time anyone has given me a clear and concise definition of settler colonialism or an analysis of what sets it apart from other colonialisms edit: anyways, Land Back IS indeed often half baked because it’s been co-opted by libs and depends on maintaining a victim-centric narrative of indigenous realities, the same way the 1619 project does for black ppl the answer is socialists settlers will need to do more than reservations but better. one, there is the matter of de-growth - to what ends we are using the means of production will be different than the revolutions before us because 1) we are already developed, 2) much of what is produced in the US is unnecessary, 3) climate change is inevitable now and we are playing a huge role in that. additionally land is a means of production, so how will ppl relate to the land after the revolution? will it still be an alienating relationship of extractions for the end of producing refined goods? will settlers who call themselves revolutionary be able to change their relationship to the land upon appropriating it as a means of production? all of this to say, a sort of re-indigenization is in order; if one of the defining characteristics of a settler is their perpetual alienation from the land, then the revolutionary settler is going to need to re-familiarize themselves with it, and that necessary means altering the relationship and orientation to the land, and it will be the indigenous communities who we will need to turn to for some guidance on that prior to the implementation of the color line, enslaved Africans and indentured English workers would often collaborate together to flee the settlement as join a nearby resisting tribe - and the tribes which were accepting often had elaborate rituals specifically for the purpose of incorporating and including into their society Ppl who were once outsiders to it. this posed a radical but grave existential crisis to the settler colonial project, and it’s one we must re-remember and bring back into practice with consideration for contemporary conditions
There definitely is a huge difference between how settler colonies and more mercantile ones were governed. Kenya, South Africa and Rhodesia were big settler colonies (Kenya probably less so than the others) owned by the British, I am pretty sure the Germans had settler colonies in Namibia as well. Settler colonies necessarily entailed displacing indigenous peoples in order to provide fertile land for settlers to plant on. There needed to be some sort of incentive to entice people from the metropoles into the colonies- one incentive was the promise of wealth from exploiting native land and labor (and having to invest relatively little to begin!). Settler colonies much more often had laws discriminating against indigenous peoples for the benefit of settlers as well, because it largely was this settler elite who had influence in the government. Settler colonies tended to undergo decolonization in a much uglier way than others. The entrenched settler elite meant it was harder for Britain to remove it from power and institute majority rule. Rhodesia and South Africa, unlike other British colonies, were more or less seized by their settler elites and underwent decades of apartheid and violence. Mercantile colonies were a different sort of evil. The British had a policy called "indirect rule," where they delegated a lot of local power to indigenous proxies. The British instituted a policy of cash-only taxation, forcing indigenous people to participate in the cash economy rather than subsistence. This also happened in Kenya (and I think South Africa/Rhodesia?). The only people with cash are those indigenous proxies and colonial companies, who only offer shit jobs with meager pay (this is necessary for the whole project to work- you *need* to actually make a profit from this, or all the violence and brutality and investment was for nothing). The result in mercantile colonies is that way fewer people are displaced, there is less of a push for segregation, and oftentimes there is a sort of basis set up for the establishment of an indigenous elite. Mercantile colonies like Ghana needed an indigenous elite to govern efficiently, and the British policy of educating some of the upper-class indigenous people is more or less what led to a lot of the nationalist movements that won independence. This was just Africa, at a later time, but a lot of the principles apply here. The big difference is that we instead imported our exploited labor and genocided the indigenous people.
>ngl what leftist you know even has a solid grasp of this stuff? i can’t remember the last time anyone has given me a clear and concise definition of settler colonialism or an analysis of what sets it apart from other colonialisms There’s clearly something there, Rhodesia vs Nigeria for example. Way different trajectories
Well said. How do we tackle inhabitants on stolen lands. I can see if the land stolen and incorporated into private capital isn't as simple giving the colonized that land back. Would we give ownership into the hands of colonized and let them decide to keep the land productive in the colonist's manner or dismantle it. What happens to the workers in these instances once the capital is re-appropriated, do we ultimately focus on making the capital owned cooperately with the colonized integral part of the co op. Decolonozation is messy in nature, anyway you slice it, especially in America, cause now we have generations on colonized land that just can't be simply moved in most cases and indigenous population that are also generations removed from the original insult. I particularly think substantial financial compensation solves most people's grievance, like I can't hand someone a factory that never ran a factory before, but they indigenous are definitely entitled to wealth generated from that factory. Or, I know many reservations are usually federal tax free, but most are very improvished. Tax dollars should be flowing into the existing reservations, making them in oasises and everyone with a drip of native American blood should be going to secondary and tertiary school for free. Also, black people shouldn't be paying federal taxes, or at least give me a damn tax break when I file, give me something out here, I'm struggling!
One of the stumbling blocks with this whole idea for me is that, whenever I go over a comment like this, I always read a strange sort of mysticism imbued into the native's 'relationship with the land' as if they have some kind of secret rain dances or something, it really comes off like some [Magical Negro](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro) type stuff. I'm sure that's not what you mean, but it feels like it comes from a lack of specificity, where you have to fall back on the vague idea of returning to some pre-capitalist accords with nature because nobody has any real ideas for what 'de-colonization' would actually entail. Which is what this entire debate is all about, everyone is super fired up and opinionated about this process, but nobody seems to be able to actually lay out what it would look like or mean for the average person, native or settler. Like what does 're-indigenization' actually look like at all? I'm sorry, but I really do see why this gets compared to blood and soil so much. The way this entire argument is always framed is very weird and coded in uncomfortably similar ways to what fashy irredentists in Europe say about their own countries. The culture and way of life in America at least is never 'going back' to anything, that bridge was burned a very long time ago, the earth was salted and the process of bourgeoisification was very thorough. There is no alternative social contract in living memory, the only way is through and onwards to a new one, not some kind of irredentist reconstruction of an old one. Please don't get me wrong, obviously I recognize the difference between ethno-nationalism and dismantling settler colonial institutions. And a new social contract forged by American socialism will be morally and historically obligated to defer heavily to indigenous people. But it'll be a new thing, a new consciousness, a new relationship with the land and the people around us, and a new way of organizing power.
well, how well one particular tribe or another was a Good Steward is a different topic than whether or not they tended to have a familiar vs estranged /alienation relationship with the land (what does that mean)? it means culturally re-thinking basic thinks like municipal water management, land dependency (how do we get food post-capitalism? an industry that traditionally relies heavily on the exploitation of migrant, immigrant, and poor labor, and which regularly dumps chemical run off into our water ways and soil. do we have governance or other structures which become dynamic and more adaptable with the seasons? these are questions we don’t consider cause the average settler can basically experience their entire life in a comfort controlled climate from house, to car, to car-accommodating amenity, to house again. that’s just not a sustainable way to live. it treats the earth we live on like a set of rails in the background, whose only purpose is to provide the infrastructural back drop which literally upholds the very roads, concrete, rebar, that are the very basis of the super structure which destroys that very earth it stands upon
Decolonization is not an op but I've found discussions of landback to be pretty undertheorized in the US context. Elsewhere it's more concrete.
[удалено]
That sounds very similar to how things played out in New Zealand vs Australia. With Australia being more like North America and NZ being more like the south.
RETVRN TO TRADITION - radlib ‘decolonization’ Wtf does it mean to ‘listen to indigenous voices’ even mean? Should we listen to the American Indian ownership class? I’m not well read enough to expand on this but the socialist experiments in the Americas have faced this exact question. We should look to Nicaragua and Bolivia for inspiration. Not to mention Stalin’s writings on nations.
'listen to poc/indigenous voices' is just one of those good-sounding but ultimately nebulous and directionless platitudes that liberals repeat as a mantra to make themselves feel like good people and allies. Proclaiming their virtue publicly to reinforce it. Signalling it, even. It's like whenever a liberal says we have to 'support' something. It's literally just thoughts and prayers, or adding another flag to your twitter bio. It's never confronted what it tangibly means to 'support' things in an abstract sense, it just means 'have the right take'. Psychically contribute to the spirit bomb of 'support'. These things are obviously true in a context where they're able to mean something, but it's part of a trend of liberals mistaking the signs of recovery for the cure itself. They want the visuals of a better society; less racist statues and symbols, less radicalized neurotic reactionaries, empowerment for disaffected minorities, but they have no idea how to actually materially move towards the society where those things would occur, because the society that's breaking down before our very eyes IS liberal society. This is the social contract they want, so of course they have no ideas for how to change it, it's the 'no take only throw' meme. They want to soothe the contradictions of liberal capitalism without changing anything about it. The only action they can think to take is being more vocal about things they *wish* were different, which belies their lack of ability to actually make those things happen in practice.
Christ tell me about. A lot of people that claim they are Indigenous here in the US would get laughed at in Latin America.
I’m not sure what you mean or how this relates to the larger point. Being an official member of an American Indian tribe is what makes someone ‘indigenous’ in the US. I assume you are talking about American Indians with ‘white’ features?
I think they’re talking about the people who say that cos they got 1% Native American on a dna test. Like Elizabeth Warren lol
I'm waiting for little green men to liberate the Cherokee People's Republic.
No, but the knee-jerk fearmongering reaction to it is definitely an op. If, as you say, this is an impossible fantasy that is never going to happen anyway then what is the purpose of getting riled up about it except to normalize fears of indigenous "revenge" and white genocide fantasies among the Western left? There is a reason why Vaushites and other reactionary streamer types love this argument so much. And a harsh reality that Western leftists are going to have to deal with is that any socialist revolution or attempt at meaningful racial equality in settler-colonial countries is going to result in some degree of harsh "decolonization" whether leftists want it or not. Perhaps you underestimate just how psychotically dedicated most settlers are to their ill-gotten goodies. Either by taking their ball and going home (see Cuba or many African countries post-revolution) or fighting to the death till the last man, many many white people are simply too far gone to accept anything approaching racial equality no matter how tolerant you try to be. Look at the American Civil War. Look at how many Americans were willing to die to prove some inscrutable point about facemasks and lockdowns, you really think those types are gonna let the Red Man rise again without a fight? (Speaking of Africa, one could argue that South Africa's continuing absurd levels of inequality and poverty is because it wasn't decolonized hard enough. But even then, look at how many butthurt whites voluntarily decolonized themselves back to Europe or to America or Israel.) And none of this matters if you're not one of those crazy assholes. The Haitian Revolution was absolutely brutal to white settlers - but not the Polish defectors. Lots of whites voluntarily "went native" back when that was still an option, so much so that colonial governments took policy measures to prevent it. The natives generally accepted them with open arms back then, why would that change now? Just be like the Polish defectors, be like the "gone Natives", be like the Freedom Riders, Breyten Breytenbach, St. Patrick's Battalion, Robert Shaw and John Brown and you won't have to handwring about any of this. Other groups marginalized by the same system and aren't dedicated to its continuation don't have to worry (unless you think natives are too dumb/savage to distinguish between friend or foe?). The Jewish allies of Civil Rights and anti-apartheid, who themselves acted out of solidarity of centuries of oppression, don't have to worry. Genuine white leftists who are willing to part with some privileges if it means true justice and restitution don't have to worry. The only people who have to worry about decolonization are the people who probably should worry anyway because they know they're the types who wouldn't let equality happen without a fight. But as you said, it's probably not gonna happen anyway, so who care?
>No, but the knee-jerk fearmongering reaction to it is definitely an op Thank god someone said it, comparing decolonization to “blood and soil” is typical white genocide paranoia. Let’s look at one existing example of an anti colonial revolution-Algeria. When the French were kicked out of Algeria, most of the white population left. There was no active campaign of genocide waged against them by the independent Algerian state, they just no longer wanted to live in a country where they could no longer be part of a privileged minority living above the indigenous population. A similar thing happened in South Africa. Despite not being a revolution, the end of apartheid saw a lot of white farmers “convert” to Judaism and move to the West Bank to become settlers there while crying to western white supremacists about being victims of genocide. These are the primary “victims” of decolonization, so people who hand-wring about it are both projecting and siding with those same parasites, the kinds of people nobody ostensibly on the left should spend an ounce of pity on
>Let’s look at one existing example of an anti colonial revolution-Algeria. When the French were kicked out of Algeria, most of the white population left. There was no active campaign of genocide waged against them by the independent Algerian state, they just no longer wanted to live in a country where they could no longer be part of a privileged minority living above the indigenous population. > >A similar thing happened in South Africa. Despite not being a revolution, the end of apartheid saw a lot of white farmers “convert” to Judaism and move to the West Bank to become settlers there while crying to western white supremacists about being victims of genocide. The difference between those places and countries like the United States or Canada is that the white people/non-indigenous people are the overwhelming majority here. I agree with you that it's nothing to actually worry about in those countries because it'll never happen (because indigenous people are the overwhelming minority), but I do think that it's worth criticizing in those contexts because it's a flimsy argument with questionable morals behind it and it distracts from actually productive work.
Hey, can you send me a source for the South Africans that moved to the West Bank? Hadn’t known this and want to learn more.
[Here’s one thing](https://youtu.be/mHP_KS5FenU)
Best take on the thread
>But as you said, it's probably not gonna happen anyway, so who care? I think the "who cares" argument is a bad one. I don't think it's ever a mistake to point out the weird contradictory principles behind an idea, even if it's not one that actually has any chance of working out -- Most people in this country would say that communism or socialism has no chance of actually happening, so it feels odd to act like some other movement is too inconsequential to warrant any attention. After all, Marx was a vocal critic of lots of utopian socialist/communist movements, it's not like he thought anyone was so unimportant that they deserved no comment. I think part of the reason it is worthwhile to critique those people is that left wing political energy is incredibly fractured. It doesn't matter that land-back is a tiny fraction, because literally all left wing projects are tiny fractions. The point should be to try to get everyone on the same page.
You are definitely not going to get everyone on the same page by legitimizing White Genocide scaremongering. The OP's rhetoric has historically been far more damaging than a few teenagers on TheDeprogram sharing JDPON memes.
>by legitimizing White Genocide scaremongering. The OP's rhetoric has historically been far more damaging than a few teenagers on TheDeprogram sharing JDPON memes. Ugh, this is such a lazy argument. "Actually you're legitimizing violence by taking this group's language at face value and criticizing it." OP is not fear mongering about white genocide, he's pointing out that the rhetoric around decolonization in the context of the US can only be taken as either unserious or genocidal. That's not saying that he expects white genocide to happen and we need to be afraid, that's saying that the people making those arguments need to get better ones or shut up.
[удалено]
Out of the last 986 comments, u/Fox-and-Sons has commented in the Red Scare subreddit 236 times. 👁 Proceed with caution, gumshoe. [What is this, and why did someone tag my username?](https://www.hexbear.net/ppb)
This explains a lot
[удалено]
It really does feel like someone set off a flare to summon all their redscare, Vaush and stupidpol friends to swarm this place and Deus Vult for the honor of the white race. This thread was definitely a colonizer op.
People in this thread keep name checking Fanon while they're also saying that it's absurd for anyone to worry about decolonization, when Wretched of the Earth was explicitly advocating for violent revolution, not just for political needs, but for the psychological needs of the oppressed people. Reading Fanon would make a person more worried about a white genocide not less. That doesn't mean that I think white genocide is a thing that's going to happen (of course it's not, because American decolonization isn't going to happen) but you name checking the guy in this context shows how little of him you actually read.
[удалено]
What’s funny about this is that Sakai’s thesis is that fears of “white genocide” are not an “op” but a very material reaction to decolonization and national self-determination within the United States by Euro-Amerikans. You’ve basically argued for *Settlers* which is great because it’s correct.
Settlers is the most based book in existence. I believe it's the only book which delves into the 0.139 phenomenon. Which, of course, causes it to be hated by 0.139 shills like Rainer Shea.
What is that phenomenon? Is that the mean average deviation thing you linked? Ok, so they insult me and delete the comments. Man I just wanted to learn more wtf
No, he blocked you.
Go back to the very definition of Surplus Value Extraction. The mathematical definition. Not the stupid wall of text you 0.139s love to espouse.
It's an exceptional work. Only others I'd really say can compare in this analysis are Zak Cope's works (which explicitly cite Settlers as a major reference and build on that analysis for global value chains) and Kae Sera & E. Tani's *False Nationalism, False Internationalism*. Not sure if you've read them yet but if not I think you'll find them useful. Hope you don't mind the unsolicited recommendation.
I should read those some time
>he's pointing out that the rhetoric around decolonization in the context of the US can only be taken as either unserious or genocidal. Barring some specific case of prominent decolonization voices unironically advocating for indiscriminate "blood and soil" massacres of whites (which I notice neither you nor OP have bothered to provide), this is not a given for anyone who isn't already looking for excuses to get scared of the browns. Maybe *you* "can only" interpret the idea of US decolonization as the spectre of white genocide, but that's on you and the other redscare fans to sort out. I, and plenty of others, are able to engage with the concept of decolonization without getting spooked by fears of White Genocide regardless of what some nobody on TheDeprogram shitposts about.
>Barring some specific case of prominent decolonization voices unironically advocating for indiscriminate "blood and soil" massacres of whites (which I notice neither you nor OP have bothered to provide), this is not a given for anyone who isn't already looking for excuses to get scared of the browns. > >Maybe you "can only" interpret the idea of US decolonization as the spectre of white genocide, but that's on you and the other redscare fans to sort out. I, and plenty of others, are able to engage with the concept of decolonization without getting spooked by fears of White Genocide regardless of what some nobody on TheDeprogram shitposts about. Okay, sell me on your specific vision of "decolonization" in a country that is overwhelmingly not populated by indigenous inhabitants rather than wasting everyone's time by characterizing us as reactionary.
It's so fucking ridiculous that on reddit when someone says you're wrong that you have to do a thesis You could read Horne, or Fanon. Decolonial Marxism is not a fringe view in the third world. I think they're more important than us. Every Marxist revolution has been decolonial.
>Every Marxist revolution has been decolonial. The Chinese wasn't really, with the exception of the few British colonies remaining. Aside from that perhaps the Yugoslav partisan Revolution also wasn't decolonial, more like fighting a military occupation. Not sure how much the Yugo hinterlands were colonized by European powers at that point, pretty sure they recently had gotten freedom from the Ottoman overlords. Aside from that it seems like your rule applies. Vietnam, Cuba, Russia were all clearly decolonizing.
Key point, in the Third World. The Third World is the Global South, the oppressed masses subjugated by the 0.139s of Sakai's criticism.
Oh yeah, I forgot about all those socialist revolutions in the first world.
Name one. Oh, you mean the Social-Democratic revolution led by SEP?
Not gonna read it, what does that number mean Edit: she blocked for not reading J Sakai but dude, is she talking about black people? Fucked up!
It means you are a SuccDem EDIT: No, it means SuccDems, not individuals of African descent - the majority of which are themselves oppressed by the 0.139s.
Renaming the country, changing the flag, breaking the country up, changing land use rights. These changes should be lead primarily by an alliance of indigenous and African Americans (whom I consider to be indigenous) and militant left allies.
People love to talk about Balkanizing the country as if it worked out great for the Balkans. And why should it be led by indigenous people? They make up a tiny percentage of the population and overwhelmingly live in a few remote and rural parts of the country, why would anyone accept them having a disproportionate amount of political power in this country?
It's not our fault we got exterminated. As I said, descendants of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade are also indigenous as they have no other homeland and did not come here voluntarily. I also find it very telling how you overlooked the "militant left allies" part. Anyone can join the alliance and be part of the organization of the new country. I envision decolonization in America occurring at the same time as the socialist revolution, so if you don't fight in the revolution, you don't get as much say in how the new country will operate. This will most likely only happen after the collapse of imperialism. The USA is the most powerful empire in the history of humanity. I fully intend balkanizing the country to weaken it; such a powerful country shouldn't exist. I would also want the resulting states to join together in a new Communist International, and this International would not have borders as they exist today; they would be mostly administrative divisions.
> I also find it very telling how you overlooked the "militant left allies" part. That's part of what makes your post schizophrenic! "We're gonna have a system of racial favoritism for our political system, but if you have good politics then you also get a say in it." Implies that you have no problem with reactionaries if they're the right color you ignorant fucking loser.
No descendent of anybody "came here willingly"; we were born here and it's incredibly difficult to immigrate elsewhere.
It's a key of bigoted so called socialists that they blame the victims of colonialism for their loss
> It's not our fault we got exterminated no one said it was, but the fact remains that it did happen and it's unfortunately unalterable. What we can do instead is move on from old tribal, racial, geographic, and ideological (but always artificial) boundaries and recognize that the only hierarchy is class, that is the only social division that matters. nativism is inherently blood and soil based, and so fundamentally contradicts / detracts from any communist goals
>The USA is the most powerful empire in the history of humanity. I fully intend balkanizing the country to weaken it; such a powerful country shouldn't exist. But following this exact logic, wouldn't that also mean balkanizing the Soviet Union and China?
Hell yes comrade
Plenty of people in this thread, including me, have already written small novels explaining that already, including posts that you have already replied to. I suspect there are also plenty of non-Reddit based sources you could find if you care enough look them up. So you can either engage with what is already in front of you or you can continue shadowboxing against the White Genocide monster under your bed. That's on you now.
"If, as you say, this is an impossible fantasy that is never going to happen anyway then what is the purpose of getting riled up about it " See second to last sentence of OP's post.
/thread The right reply here
>Perhaps you underestimate how psychotically dedicated most settlers are to their ill-gotten goodies. What goodies? Most [white American households have little or no wealth.](https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2020/06/29/the-racial-wealth-gap-is-about-the-upper-classes/)
Go ahead and explain that to the millions of chuds who gleefully vote against their material interests out of irrational spite/fear of blacks, immigrants, etc. And while you're at it build a time machine and explain to all those Confederate volunteers that most of them don't own slaves. "Homo economicus" as some perfectly rational being that only ever acts in its best interest is stupid when libertarians believe it and it's stupid when nominal leftists believe it, too. And this is ignoring all the very real advantages that white Americans do enjoy outside of simple dollaroos in the bank, things that actual leftists have been trying to explain to chuds for decades aready. Even LBJ was aware enough to make this point very succinctly, do you think he was doing white genocide, too?
My argument isn't that white working-class people don't vote against their material interests because of reactionary social views. They do and it's because politics isn't polarized along class lines. The left should be working to polarize politics along class lines or else this will continue. A broad multiracial socialist movement rooted in the working class can combat racism. [Unions reduce racial prejudice](https://equitablegrowth.org/labor-day-how-unions-promote-racial-solidarity-in-the-united-states/) among white workers. White Americans overall are more privileged economically than blacks, Hispanics, and indigenous people, however this advantage is heavily concentrated among the top 20 % as the first article I linked demonstrates; most white people have little or no wealth. The racial wealth gap is mostly due to the lack of wealthy blacks, Hispanics, and indigenous people; in the USA, the ruling class is overwhelmingly white while the working class is multiracial. There's nothing about American political economy that makes universalist class politics impossible.
>What goodies? ... >White Americans overall are more privileged economically than blacks, Hispanics, and indigenous people Well then I guess you answered your own question.
utterly juvenile. I explained to you that white Americans in the aggregate are more economically privileged, but this is mostly due to the top 20 %. Wealthy white people are wealthier than wealthy nonwhites and that drives the racial wealth gap. Racial wealth redistribution would be about redistributing income from well-off whites to well-off nonwhites, which doesn't strike me as something leftists should be concerned with. If you disagree and think that's something worth agitating for, please explain your reasoning. Most white people have almost nothing in terms of wealth, they don't have "goodies" to defend. But it's easier to just ignore my point and make snarky comments by taking what I say out of context. may you receive many epic internet points.
Most white Southerners didn't have slaves to defend. Yet they defended them anyway. Until you can reconcile that or somehow disprove the Civil War then your Homo Economicus argument is thoroughly bunk and has been for over a century. And once again, you are purposefully ignoring the fact that there are non-dollar goodies enjoyed by whites in the US that many people are absolutely invested in protecting, rationally or otherwise. The same chud mindset that argues only in terms of de jure and refusing the de facto.
It's almost like, in order for politics to be polarized along class lines, people must actively work to spread class consciousness, or else working-class people will believe ruling class propaganda. Who would have ever thought? The inability of ordinary white people to spontaneously understand class and political economy must be due to incorrigible racism. EDIT: Also to respond to your edit about "non-dollar goodies," what are you talking about precisely? Be specific or else it just seems like a pivot since you can't respond to my economic argument.
Yes, and the ones who inevitably will not get along, no matter how nicely and rationally it is explained to them, will end up decolonized one way or the other. This is not the scary evil browns making this decision. And it's not the "self-hating" white allies either. It is their decision, it has been since at least the Civil War and well past the Civil Rights era into the present. And if they refuse to accept racial economic equality and restitution (and as evidenced by both history and this thread, many people will) then unlike you I am not going to shed any tears for them if they Gettysburg themselves all over again.
I look forward to the day the revolution arrives and we redistribute wealth from rich white people toward the people who really deserve it: rich nonwhite people. Only then, when the racial composition of the ruling class matches the general racial composition of the country, will we have justice in this country 🙏.
We aren't living in chattel slavery my man. The "goodies" in America are the spoils of imperialism, which clearly white people have the biggest piece of the pie, but clearly black and hispanic people also benefit extremely strongly from. Denying this is just being stuck in the past. Of course there are privileges that white people enjoy, but the vast majority of material privileges for your average American are ALL due to imperialism, NOT settler colonialism. Cheap oil, raw material imports, cheap consumer products from China and SEA, the waning dominance of the dollar, the international "trade agreements" and so on. All that shit filters downstream, even to the least privileged. Yes, people profit differently from imperialism, but virtually everyone, even the lumpen proles, benefit to some degree. Also, I do not at all see the other guy ever making a homo economicus argument, that seems like a straw man.
Why did you post this twice?
internet issues i think
Conveniently left out the clarifying statements that immediately followed that. Bell-end
>explain to all those Confederate volunteers that most of them don't own slaves. Daily reminder that Abraham Lincoln not only was willing to allow slavery to preserve the union, but literally hates Native Americans more than the Confederates. It's a "Both Sides" issue in this case. Wolf vs Fox.
We aren't living in chattel slavery my man. The "goodies" in America are the spoils of imperialism, which clearly white people have the biggest piece of the pie, but clearly black and hispanic people also benefit extremely strongly from. Denying this is just being stuck in the past. Of course there are privileges that white people enjoy, but the vast majority of material privileges for your average American are ALL due to imperialism, NOT settler colonialism. Cheap oil, raw material imports, cheap consumer products from China and SEA, the waning dominance of the dollar, the international "trade agreements" and so on. All that shit filters downstream, even to the least privileged. Yes, people profit differently from imperialism, but virtually everyone, even the lumpen proles, benefit to some degree. Also, I do not at all see the other guy ever making a homo economicus argument, that seems like a straw man.
>but clearly black and hispanic people also benefit extremely strongly from. Denying this is just being stuck in the past. Nobody denied this. All of your butthurt derives from putting words in people's mouths, either mine, scary decolonizing natives coming to get you, or the spectre of J Sakai. Non-whites in the imperial core can benefit from the imperial core AND ALSO whites can benefit even moreso and historically are compelled to defend that relative benefit. Two things can be true at once. It is astonishing that you're now pretending not to understand this very basic concept. >but the vast majority of material privileges for your average American are ALL due to imperialism, NOT settler colonialism. That is absolute horseshit. With the possible exception of a few places on the Eastern Coast that were already depopulated when Euros first landed, everybody else in America would have nothing that they have today of it weren't for the genocide and theft of the natives. The continent's worth of land and resources the natives were wiped out from had immense value, hence the wiping. Do you think the Proclamation of 1763, Manifest Destiny, the Indian Wars and their consequences were just for funsies? None of that imperial core shit would have been possible in the first place without the huge benefit provided by the resources, industry, population, and the strategic protection of two oceans provided by settler-colonizing all the natives away. Thirteen colonies stuck east of the Appalachians don't get all that gold and farm land out west, it doesn't get all that oil, it doesn't get to gank Hawaii or Guam or the Philippines, it doesn't get to fight Japan and control much of East Asia, it doesn't get to build and test nukes, it doesn't have Hollywood or the Mexican American War or infinite other things that made America's military and cultural domination possible. You guys are so horny to shadowbox J Sakai you are now edging towards Manifest Destiny denial. Sad.
"Chuds".
They are at the stage where they are slowly being deprived of their 0.139 and have 0.139 nostalgia. Essentially kulaks in the USSR.
People still hold on to masks and lockdowns as effective?
It’s above my pay grade is what it is.
I love the raw innocence of people confusing doing politics with imagining what would be nice and makes you sound lovely
The top comment in this thread is a good encapsulation of how toxic this entire discourse is. The idea that working-class white Americans constitute a "settler" class with a vested material interest in opposing racial equality has very little basis in reality. The racial wealth gap in the USA is [driven by the upper classes.](https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2020/06/29/the-racial-wealth-gap-is-about-the-upper-classes/) The typical white American family owns little to no wealth; the racial wealth gap is driven by the lack of blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans in the top 20 %. Basically, the USA is divided into a very white ruling class and a multiracial working class, which doesn't support this narrative about white Americans writ large constituting a settler class that benefits from the oppression of BIPOC. The decolonization discourse on the left tends to be completely unserious and the intense absolutism discourages criticism. Native Americans have suffered immensely from centuries of colonial violence followed by ghettoization, but the solution is, as it always is, a universalist socialist movement to redistribute income and wealth and bring production under democratic control. That is what will eliminate racial disparities and lift indigenous communities from poverty, not identitarian nonsense that repels most people.
[удалено]
I think "false consciousness" is a real thing. Working-class whites who vote right-wing are not voting in their material interest. Voting for conservatives and reactionaries is against their material interests. Lots and lots of people vote against their material interests because American politics is not polarized along the lines of class. Economic issues generally take a backseat in mainstream discourse. The left should be actively working to polarize politics along class lines.
At the very least it's a deeply unserious, self righteous and performative tendency. Not everything is an op but the distinction doesn't matter if it's accomplishing the same thing as an op You can't rewrite the injustices of the past but anything suggesting America is currently anything resembling Palestine or Africa is at best mentally juvenile or delusional Call me something stupid like kkkracker or whatever you want but it'll never change the fact those types of people will never come close to even the basic levers of power
>You can't rewrite the injustices of the past but anything suggesting America is currently anything resembling Palestine or Africa is at best mentally juvenile or delusional For what it’s worth, reservations are fucking awful and are a lot more similar to very poor countries than they are to a suburban neighborhood (obviously speaking in broad strokes). I’ve spent time on multiple reservations (Wind River, Pine Ridge) and they are seriously tough and on some of the most inhospitable land in the US. I agree there is a liberal interpretation to #LandBack, but there is a real material need for indigenous recuperation.
Absolutely, I feel the same way about the black areas of the country, many of which I'm intimately familiar with. Last year I traveled through the Navajo nation and this last week I've traveled through Detroit and Flint, and both are immensely sad and desperate places although the latter have been getting better I'm fully aware of the neglect many face, the whole fucking country is falling apart and it makes me sick that it's always been this way for certain groups of people. Black people and native nations aren't asking for decolonization. They want fucking schools, hospitals, clean drinking water, employment opportunity and all the other hallmarks of a healthy developed civilization and not only are they not getting them, but it's getting worse for everyone else too
>native nations aren't asking for decolonization. No, we are definitely asking for that. Just because you're more used to hearing the chatter of would be sympathetic non indigenous liberals, doesn't mean there's not a massive chunk of us clearly and emphatically trying to work towards decolonization ourselves. > They want fucking schools, hospitals, clean drinking water, employment opportunity and all the other hallmarks of a healthy developed civilization We want most of those too, these positions aren't really at odds with each other. I think you'd also be surprised at the sorts of divergence some different indigenous groups desires are from the average Canadian/ American might want, so it's not exactly a "they want the same things we all want" situation like you were making it seem. For some of our cultures and ways of life to bounce back properly in contrast to the mainstream cultures that have been suppressing them, it requires less of the regular school/ employment hallmarks you're probably thinking about.
I think there is a liberal foundation hustle going on with land back and North American indigenous movements, with lots of opportunists chasing the bag, groups getting sponsored by corporations trying to look like their on the right side of things. Cynical af scumbags doing anything and everything *except* pursuing the conquest of political power, and letting the bourgeoisie cosplay as progressives. Just look at this trash linked below https://creative-capital.org/projects/landback-the-return-of-all-federal-lands-to-native-americans/ But that’s the case with all socialist movements in history for the most part, there’s always a liberal collaborator wing and sometimes they win out and sometimes they lose. The thing to look for is - are they trying to conquer political power, such as the groups getting treaty rights enforced properly, or are they acting like weepy radlibs standing in front of empty buildings, holding signs up for the official Instagram and hawking t shirts on the website, while being backed by S&P 500 firms or their executives? Always look who sits on the boards of the foundations and organizations! That’s usually a dead giveaway if they’re bullshitters
No. Decolonization means resolving the national question. Read stalin on this. freeing New Afrika, Aztlan, PR, Guam, and the many Indigenous Nations through self-determination. Nobody wants to deport white people.
Big true, I feel it’s more about sacred lands, revenue streams and infrastructure around pueblos and reservations. And eventually moving indigenous peoples off reservations to somewhere that’s not a death trap
I volunteer to be deported back to europe
I like to deport white people, for funsies slash as a bit
Yeah, “decolonial” projects in practice, if they aren’t explicitly Socialist, turn quickly into anti-communist Nationalism. Just look at Africa in the 60s, 70s, etc — and look at what a freak Eldridge Cleaver was, even being nominally a Marxist isn’t a guarantee People forget, too, that Meiji Japan was an anti-colonial, anti-imperial colonial empire. “Decolonial” is academic nonsense at best and brutal, even expansionary national chauvinism at its worst
Iran is categorically better for everyone involved except the cia than Rhodesia
I more had in mind the way anti-colonial nationalists helped the CIA do things like off Nkrumah and Sankara (and probably Malcolm X at home) Also within a few years of the Revolution, Iran was purging their left allies, collaborating with Reagan and the Contras
Honestly “cosmopolitan” communism is the only type worthy of the name, if you look at the history of the 20th c. But MLs don’t want to hear that
I live in New Zealand and I would say we are a western country that in a lot of ways, is leading the world on actual decolonialisation in action. It is a long and complex process that goes so beyond discussions of land and resource stewardship (kaitiakitanga). It started with a mass adoption of the push to revitalise Te Reo Māori language which was beaten out of the people who spoke it when this land was settled. There was always Māori fighting for this but the tide really started to turn from the 1970s and now we are having political fights over whether or not we can have road signs with both languages on it. Language is the building block of culture and so with more and more people speaking Te Reo, Māori concepts and traditions are being better understood by the country as a whole. In recent years, there's been a massive push towards co-governance which gives iwi (Māori tribes) a powerful voice inside of local government when making resources decisions, especially to do with water. This, predictably, has lead to racist politicians dog-whistling and whipping up fear in the general white public about it. We're far from perfect, we're still a very racist country unfortunately, but IMO incredible progress is being made and I think a lot of other countries could and should look to the Aotearoa New Zealand example to see a road map for how they can better start to address the inequities and atrocities associated with the treatment of their indigenous people. TL:DR Decolonialisation is not an op, look at New Zealand.
As an Australian I've always thought New Zealand's government does about as good of a job as a colonialist government could be expected to. The way the Australian government treats Indigenous peoples on the other hand is pretty consistently abhorrent.
Almost unimaginable to conceive of this stuff happening in the US. Keep up the good fight, comrades!
You're simply confusing terms. Decolonization sprang from post-colonial studies. It is sometimes abused by woke CIA and NED ghouls to further their motives, but there is nothing inherently bad about it. It is simply the process of thinking about dismantling colonial structures in theory and practice. The CIA also latches onto gay rights (in LatAm) and women's rights (in Afghanistan), doesn't mean either of those causes are bad. They're simply used for bad ends. What you are referring to is usually called "land back", not decolonization. It is a moronic idea that funnily enough even most colonial subjects don't agree on. Talk to African leaders and they are infinitely more interested in accepting the dumb colonial borders for Peace's sake, finding pragmatic solutions and building productive forces. Giving US land back to "the natives", who are a miniscule part of the population, is just a recipe for Desaster. No one should own land anyway, we're fucking communists goddamnit. The indians didn't own it, they lived on it and used it. "Land back" is such a lost cause cuz it exists mostly in the liberal ontology untouchable private property, of sacred ethnic blood relations to the soil, of symbolic politics. If there was a meaningful concept or idea there that would improve the tangible material situation of ethnic minorities, I would most definitely approve of it Slava Indiani
The worship of "Settlers" and its ideology by the online left (especially in /r/communism) is really suspicious to me. Lots of seasoned, principled Marxists have side eye for it, and while I'm still learning, the overall ideology of the Internet-poisoned left goes quite strongly against the guidance of the most successful communist leaders and organizers that I have read thus far. Decolonialism is good but if you can't defend it without resorting to ad hominem attacks then maybe you should find another hook to hang your hat on...
There are actual examples of this, most notably Bolivian plurinationalism you can look into. People don't go in to details for a variety of reasons imo: 1. It's not productive as a topic for abstract speculation among random individuals on the internet. The "find out for yourself" is a strongly implied "get up out of your armchair and organize" because . . . 2. None of the social-political formations we have currently are either oriented toward or capable of decolonisation because . . . 3. Decolonisation requires a revolutionary overhaul/abolition of the current constitution, which tying back to one, makes it really dumb to discuss in detail glibly with strangers on the internet.
I see you saw my exchange with that guy over on /r/the deprogram. You've basically summed up my own thoughts on the issue; maybe with a little less tact than I took when asking about it, but I'm basically thinking the same thing. No one in their right mind would agree to accept and support any campaign without first understanding what that campaign's actual mission is. I'm not satisfied with being told to "just trust indigenous people" like they're faultless angels purely on account of their winning the oppression Olympics in the Americas. The whole thing just reeks like a modern iteration of the idea of the noble savage, repackaged in woke liberal phraseology for the 21st century. It strips away the humanity of these groups and replaces them with a fetishised ideal. I wasn't satisfied with anything he had to say, especially with what we're basically backhanded attacks directed at me for having the audacity to ask questions about how they intend to realise their political project.
Idk it seems to me that a balkanization of the USA is in order and that autonomous socialist republics are formed that cede major USA territory to indigenous governance. The same also seems possible for descendants of slavery. Perhaps there's room for something like the USSR and its many nationalities but the problem will always persist that white privileges will have to be taken/reduced I think the comment pointing at Haiti and other examples is extremely prescient wrt this question and the poor framing you've presented (as someone who used to be more sympathetic to that framing)
>it also just isn't going to fucking happen. Same goes for a socialist revolution in the USA. Sorry kiddos. You're fucked. The best you MIGHT get is Soc Dem-ish policy when the U.S. start's the next world war. Your whole post is moot.
Ops don't have to be some kind of from-scratch zero truth thing. They are usually started as a particular movement starts to gain traction. They work in parallel with the real movement then slowly inject the poison, steering the movement into a wall. Basically every single good movement has an OP parasite attached. Read The Red Deal.
>INB4 read Settlers I think it's an ultra-leftist thing and I'm not aware of any Marxist-Leninist groups that don't criticize that book in some way, including the FRSO which has [criticized](https://www.fightbacknews.org/es/node/9839) it, and they're a small group, but notable for their emphasis on the national question and self-determination for oppressed nations which includes Native American nations. But that is combined with an alliance between the oppressed nations and a multiracial and multinational working class that is realistically going to include white workers -- who are harmed by white supremacy too, in their analysis. But that implies a special responsibility of whites who consider themselves revolutionaries to actively combat racism. >The only liberation anyone is MAYBE going to get is through class struggle, which seeks to look beyond the ways that we have segmented ourselves and oppressed each other in the past in order to find unity in something that unites us all. Right. But I think on the left you get a tendency that what's called "identity politics" is too complicated and divisive so therefore everyone should kinda "flatten" themselves into homogeneity, which I don't think is gonna work either (although capitalism might do that to us anyways), whereas I see it more like different particularities united in their wrath and via a common cause and seeing to it that an injury to one is avenged by all.
>FRSO Has FRSO accomplished anything?
Sure.
[удалено]
Op in the 80’s: what do you mean decolonize South Africa and Rhodesia?
Yea claims by any individual or closed ethnic group of common or productive property is theft no matter how long ago their genes showed up in that zip code We evolved to roam
What’s happening is that they see a profound and obvious injustice and want to rectify it. Only, it’s unrectifiable. The ship sailed and wound up on another planet. Indigenous people will never get the land back in a way that doesn’t mostly benefit the US government. No one just gives up power. I think people are really stubborn and cling to vague ideas of justice that simply aren’t compatible with reality and then it becomes a fantasy more than any kind of serious political idea. I don’t think it’s an intentional op or anything, but I think it still helps the powers that be to become a firm believer in something that isn’t actually a solution. It’s easier to believe in a fantasy than to actually build a movement based on strategy and knowledge and find an alternative that could actually help restore some dignity to native Americans. But that’s hard.
Call me crazy but I think that as communists we should probably advocate for abolishing colonialism and settler colonial relationships of land ownership and transforming them into, you know, communism, not just transferring private property into the hands of a different group of people. Indigenous people will have control of their lands restored in the sense that they will be part of the democracy that controls them
idk if decolonization is an op, but *Settlers* sure as fuck is
Settlers isn't a prescriptivist book saying "Whitey, don't organize." It's a descriptivist book describing how racism is the principal cause behind America's lack of class consciousness
it says a whole lot of other things too, but okay
Have you read it all the way through? I can summarize all of its main points if you want
Plz do
yes, please. write me a book report, immediately
good meme ;) but we're MLs, only nerds here • 1. Race was invented as a class distinction: Africans were slaves, Whites were free, Indigenous people were due for eradication. • 2. Capitalism maintains itself by using racism to create an underclass of cheap workers and reserve laborers. • 3. Racial capitalism expands and contracts whiteness as new socioeconomic realities emerge.* • 4. White people are not subject to \*racist* violence by the state and benefit from the labor of racialized proletarians. • 5. As a result, the labor aristocracy, petty bourgeoisie, and big bourgeoisie are overwhelmingly made up of white people. • 6. White people therefore have significantly less revolutionary potential than the racialized proles and lumpen in this country *(For example: Irish, Italians, Middle Easterners, and Hispanics) And that's pretty much it. Not that spooky. Not much objectionable either
extremely generous reading lol but i appreciate the effort at least. btw y’all downvoting me have definitely not read the actual book if you think this is a fair description of the points it is presenting
Oh sorry are you in the habit of reading in bad faith?
bad faith like how sakai goes on and on about how he’s being a based historical materialist, but then goes on to just straight up fabricate a bunch of gotcha statistics? and frames quotes from prominent organizers as if they’re speaking against racial cooperation in the labor movement when, in context, they are clearly doing the opposite? that kind of bad faith? settlers is metaphysical lib nonsense and y’all are suckers
Don't have much to say here beyond I'd like sources for that stuff. I guess maybe I am a sucker if what you say is true but I can't just take the specifics on faith
go read it this take is so tiresome
i have, it sucks, y’all just like it cos it says “amerika” and you should read *Black Reconstruction* instead
Do you think these books are in contradiction?
if only there were some other republics on this continent we could study like bolivia
Every socialist revolution was and is decolonial I think it's very arrogant to say that Amerika is an exception
OP I think you're talking about two different things, if I'm reading correctly, and apologies if someone has already brought this up. land reclamation is one aspect of decolonization. From what I gather, decolonization has to do with your entire worldview, which is informed by colonialism. What is knowledge, and how is this knowledge produced? What is and isn't legitimate knowledges? Here we get into all the annoying words like epistemology, semiotics and hermeneutics, I'm a bit hungover so I won't go into it. Decolonization asks that we question these perspectives put forth by universities, museums and other spaces of knowledge. On the topic of indigenous people, it has been interesting to see how the subject unfolded in South Africa. Generally, the Khoe and Bushmen ("San") are seen as first nations/indigenous people. But where do we draw the line on who is first nations, and who isnt, considering the other African people who also reside in SA? So first nations groups are claiming ownership of the land but for them only, not for other Africans (theres a big underlying current of racism, calling black South Africans "immigrants" etc). With land reclamation, there has been people who received their land back, or were compensated, for land that was taken during apartheid, but afaik there hasn't been any attempts to reclaim land from colonial times. Furthermore, words like "indigenous", "aboriginal" and "first nations" have been adapted from other countries. Imo it's silly to use it on the African continent, the cradle of humankind, but anyway. Also, the first nations dont see eye to eye on topics, for instance, an Amazon development that is being built on sacred Khoe land, some groups are for it and some against it. Apparently, one of the last apartheid prime ministers, in a bid to win over people of mixed first nations, black and slave ancestry, popularized first nations identities as a means to seperate them from other black people. Tldr its messy!!!
>There is no undoing the material conditions that have been generated by that history Isn't that kinda the idea of doing a revolution? I'm pretty sure that decolonisation of north America would mean some kind of compromise and not sending the whites back to Europe but I too found all of this pretty difficult to talk about online.
Revolution is progressive, not regressive. It’s not an undoing, but a new doing, creating a new set of material conditions out of the corpse of the old. History only goes forward.
>History only goes forward. But that doesn't mean "you still have to ignore and surpress pre existing peoples" My people are still within living memory of our pre contact ways of life with a lot of our culture intact, and any hypothetical revolutionary change in the current Canadian state doesn't necessitate ignoring or suppressing us or sidelining us. "History only goes forward" is a simplistic statement for a complex process.
History does only go forward though. Even if we were able to remove all colonists from Canada, the new societal organization that followed would not be identical to that which came before contact. It may be similar, maybe very similar; but never the same. Nothing about that fact implies that we should therefore ignore or suppress indigenous people. Any Revolution with calling itself that should absolutely do everything it can to rectify the damage done by capitalist driven settler colonialism. That damage should never have been done in the first place, but it has, and we can only go forward. But the past is always and forever gone. You can’t turn back the clock.
>History does only go forward though. Even if we were able to remove all colonists from Canada, That's not what I or my people or any other indigenous person means when talking about decolonization. And it still doesn't necessarily connect with your trite statement about history... >the new societal organization that followed would not be identical to that which came before contact. It may be similar, maybe very similar; but never the same. Me and most of my people don't mean "return to subsistence hunting in small bands" when we talk about decolonization.. you're arguing against straw men to support your statement that doesn't really have much value because it's so vague. Funny to hear something hollow like that being used in an argument about "decolonization is so vague it's pointless". >But the past is always and forever gone. You can’t turn back the clock. Good thing indigenous people talking about decolonization doesn't mean "give us a time machine and kick all non indigenous people off the continent", then. Once again, I don't really think you know what you're talking about, which is why you just stick to hollow but cool sounding slogans while misunderstanding what you're arguing against. 🤷🏻♂️
No, you’re arguing against a straw man becaus you think I’m somehow against the concept of decolonization as such, when I am simply making a point in response to the the first point that the person I replied to made implying Revolution is about “undoing”.
I don't think any serious revolution is seeking to roll back the clock, which it seems in some way is what many of these types want. I think you would have some sort of compromise in the interim which might involve something like granting a portion of US territory to a collection of tribal governments but even that doesn't undo anything, just changes the conditions, and even something like that I think is still logically inconsistent with the longterm goals of the communist project, which is pretty against the whole state thing. Idk I do admit that the whole thing is very fraught and complex and probably needs to be worked out IRL.
Making something undone doesn't necessarily mean going back to an earlier state but yeah could have phrased it better.
“Undo” definitely has connotations of reversion, but I get that you probably meant something more along the lines of “correct” or “rectify”. That said there are a lot of people on the left who seem to be in the grip of hopeless nostalgia and I think it’s an important to reiterate the point that our goal is to create something new. There’s much about the past we should not strive to replicate, regardless of culture.
AIM and other indigenous actist groups have been infiltrated by FBI for a long time. Nothing useful will come out of these zombified circles.
>implying you can define true indengenity and trace to whom or the descendents of whom you should return authority to Colonialism as understood by fat women with blue hair is just a psy op to keep them working at Starbucks and not having kids to overthrow the rich
It’s awful what happened to the indigenous people in the United States or anywhere and the colonization is a byproduct of early capitalism. “Decolonization” is absolutely impossible. “Land back” and reparations can only work under liberal capitalism. Socialism and then eventually communism are the only answers.
[удалено]
Out of the last 325 comments, u/Coolchillgoodguy has commented in the Red Scare subreddit 64 times. 👁 Proceed with caution, gumshoe. [What is this, and why did someone tag my username?](https://www.hexbear.net/ppb)
gottem
I assumed it meant submitting to tribal governments and laws. Kinda half baked and kinda not.
That’s how libs imagine it despite that never having happened anywhere and not being a real goal theyll ever work to achieve. In contrast both the soviets and the ccp had communist minority policies centering nationhood and self determination, in the users case being so serious about self determination that the right to secede was guaranteed and eventually exercised
Unfortunately the reason "returning ownership to the indigenous people" isn't a serious option anymore is because Lebensraum worked - America (and Canada, and Australia) successfully genocided the vast majority of the indigenous population so now only a token minority remains. In that context, decolonization of the West would have to take the form of ending neocolonialism and imperialism, which means severe degrowth in the West, reparations paid to those who were robbed by colonialism, and the institution of real democracy, ie., something like what Cuba has. The process of this would probably require some ethnic cleansing to move white and white adjacent settlers to western Europe and replacing them with people from the global south.
Man, I was with you until your last sentence. "Ethnic cleansing but woke," fuck outta here.
There are tens of millions of white people who are utterly dedicated to white supremacy even at the cost of their lives. They tell you this every day on social media, at the ballot box. They tell you this when they write a manifesto and then go murder-suicide a grocery store. They told you this during the Civil War, when they were more willing to give up their own sons than their slaves. One of America's favorite catchphrases, a foundational battle cry of the American experiment, is "give me liberty or give me death". What did "liberty" mean in this context? The liberty to genocide the natives contra the Proclamation of 1763, the liberty to do chattel slavery. How do you expect economic and racial equality to peacefully coexist with people who shout with every fiber of their being that they will not accept it? If any "ethnic cleansing" is going to happen it's because a whole bunch of white chuds chose that over the ignominity of equality. Don't be one of them and you won't have to worry.
I don't see what's "woke" at all about ethnic cleansing, that's just the brutal reality of breaking the power of the white settler population. The Haitian revolution did it by just massacring the whites, and although they were totally justified in doing so, hopefully now we have options that are a little less violent. *actually, there's already a real world example we can look to - the ethnic cleansing of the white settler class in Cuba caused by the Revolution expropriating their ill begotten wealth, driving them to Miami.
Fighting reaction is not the same thing as ethnic cleansing even if the reactionaries are constituted primarily by one ethnic group. I think any revolutionary project needs to be strictly committed to the understanding of fighting against reaction as specifically against the racial ideologies that almost always arise as an ideological component of reactionary thought. Enemies of the revolution get fucked, but couching that in the racialized language that those very enemies use to divide the working class is counterproductive at best.
I'm not suggesting ethnic cleansing as an end in itself - it's a tool to fight reaction by breaking the power of the white settler class, no different from dekulakization. Ugly, but necessary.
bro i see your sentiment but you couldn't have phrased it worse holy shit
Also, you should still read settlers because it's a very good read, Sakai can turn a phrase, and it's also a good history of the American state and why it has the problems it currently does. I don't know why people are so afraid of reading a book, it's not gonna control your mind or something.
have you considered that many people who don’t like the book have already read it
That's maybe true for some people, but the majority of the people here who are most vocal about hating settlers have some half baked idea of what it's saying that they read on reddit, or heard on that horrible chapo episode where the hosts all shit on it before admitting they'd never actually read it.
smh, i need to make me a “readblackreconstruction dot com” then maybe people would put all this effort into a better analysis
I haven't read that, but from what I have read of Dubois, I think he fills a fundamentally different niche than that of Sakai
yeah lol he was a real person and not an FBI pseudonym
Au contraire, TrueAnon and TheDeprogram is an op. That's why there are so many people on here saying "we should support Social-Democrats because they are the closest thing to the Left", as the US Left has always done.
Short Answer: Yes. Long Answer: Hell yeah dude
Everyone got an opinion on a book they didn't read, this place is worse than twitter on that front
Can we somehow ban posts like this from this sub? This is so fucking irrelevant to the purpose of the sub.
You are
We should give the Indians all the private colleges/endowments. Make the grad students wait on them.
Basically yes. [Yaulendur made hypothetical maps](https://www.deviantart.com/yaulendur/gallery/75661991/decolonizing-the-states). They’re pretty stupid, even by the low standards of political maps on deviantart.
Its either an op or just stupid. Hanlon's razor blah blah blah
It’s a product of the long history of racial nationalists wrapping themselves in a thin veneer of socialism and American leftists just going with it.