I don’t have another country waiting to accept me, and I don’t particularly want to leave the only place I’ve ever lived, so if they want me gone, it is their problem. Are they tossing me in jail because I have the wrong ethnicity? Deporting me to a place I have no connection to?
I have no right to say what they should do and neither do you.
Do you think all indigenous people can do whatever the fuck they want, as long as they are on their own land, and noone has any right to judge their actions?
1930s germans were indigenous people on their own land, after all.
I agree that cultural assimilation requirements and dealing harshly with white nationalists are ok; mass expulsion is not.
And I’m also pretty sure that most native Americans don’t want mass expulsion, so this whole discussion is moot.
The aggressor, in the process of atoning for their atrocities, has no right to say that the recourse proposed by the victim is unreasonable.
We are the colonial aggressors, Indigenous people are the colonized victims.
Let’s say a man and a woman live in the same house, and the man hits the woman. If the man is truly seeking to atone for his crime, and the woman tells him to move out because even seeing his face is traumatic for her, would it be reasonable for the man to complain that he has nowhere else to go? To ask the woman where she thinks he should go? To try and guilt the woman into letting him stay? If he does any of those, is he truly sorry for what he did?
You’re right that most Indigenous people don’t want mass expulsion. We should be incredibly grateful for that and it’s a testament of their compassion and desire for equality among all people, even after all we did to them. What we shouldn’t do is tell them that they can’t tell us to leave or that we’d refuse to leave because we have a rightful claim to this land. Doing so is completely unproductive and will only serve to make us less deserving of staying.
As if indigenous societies never fought wars and claimed land between eachother. Send all of humanity to Africa and let the squirrels and birds take back their land while we’re at it.
As if indegenous societies never fought wars and claimed land between eachother.
Not at the scale colonialism has, no. Skirmishes and even conquest between individual tribes is fundamentally different from the systematic genocide of an entire continent’s population.
At what scale does a genocide become bad enough to deport everyone?
Without written history, it’s hard to say exactly how pre-colonial conflics in North America played out, but I’ve found a few sources that suggest that inter-tribe warfare can be just as bloody as any other war (as far as the technology allowed, of course). “Skirmishes between tribes” is quite an understatement.
At what scale? I’d say it’s definitely closer to colonialism than it is to Indigenous wars. No doubt some Indigenous groups were capable of immense cruelty to those around them, but a continent wide ethnic cleansing is something utterly incomprehensible to even the most expansionist Indigenous groups.
Colonialism developed logistics, beauracy, and governing bodies specifically for genocide, which happened over generations. The people in charge of perpetuating it didn’t even know all the people they killed, the concept of those people alone were enough to condemn them. By contrast, even the largest scale Indigenous wars had the combatants reasonably familiar with those they were fighting.
I’ve found a case of recorded genocidal conflict (“with intent to exerminate opposing tribe”), but it was obviously postcolonial (because there are basically no records of precolonial history). I’ll note that both sides were supplied by respective colonial powers, so it could very well be considered a proxy war; however the conflict was waged by the tribes themselves, at their own will. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars
We can’t forget that since the population density of America was much lower than in Europe, it’s hard to compare conflicts apples-to-apples. Killing 10 individuals in a small tribe/village could exterminate nearly 10% their population; a number that would be considered devastating, quasi-genocidal if it happened between european powers.
As for your second point, it brings up a problem I have with your general argument. You argue that Indigenous conflics can be forgiven since the individuals had “no interest in waging a multi-generational genocide”. I can confidently say that I, an North American with European decent, also have no interest in “waging a multi-generational genocide”; why must I be punished for it, then? Nobody gets to choose their ancestry.
(That being said, I acknowldege that systemic racism is still a very big problem today where I live, and I give my vote to whoever can reduce it the most)
I can confidently say that I, an North American with European decent, also have no interest in “waging a multi-generational genocide”; why must I be punished for it, then? Nobody gets to choose their ancestry.
The goal is not to punish anyone, nor is the goal to kick everyone out. The only goal of decolonization is to give back control of the land which was forcibly taken. Like Cowbee said, you give them the reigns, and then you let go. The logical extreme of this is that if they wanted everyone to leave, they could in theory, but that’s only a logical extreme and it doesn’t mean it will definitely happen. The majority of Indigenous groups make it pretty clear that’s not what they want out of decolonization.
Indigenous peoples are not interested in punishing you. Most aren’t even interested in having you go anywhere. They’re reasonable people with empathy and compassion. The notion that you were born here not by choice is not lost on them.
I think this thread is focusing way too much on the notion that Indigenous people could force you out of their land and many people are under the assumption that they will definitely treat you worse than the current government treats you for not being Indigenous. But honestly, the way the current government treats even non-Indigenous people is absolute shit and getting worse by the day, so there’s no reason not to think our lives would be better under Indigenous sovereignty.
I recommend the book The Red Deal: Indigenous Action to Save our Earth if you’re interested in what decolonization looks like from the perspective of Indigenous people. They certainly don’t solely think about benefiting themselves.
I really didn’t think I was being subtle here. I’m going to stop “just asking questions” and instead say that I’m surprised to see, in this of all threads, a sincere argument that there are some circumstances where it is okay for one ethnic group to systemically displace another, despite both groups only having that place to claim as a homeland.
despite both groups only having that place to claim as a homeland.
Your claim isn’t even close to the magnitude of their claim. They’ve been here for over ten thousand years. They. Own. This. Continent. And. Always. Will.
And again, we displaced them. We are the colonizing class. I am calling for the reversing of what was done to them, which necessarily includes giving them back control over the land. I’m not saying they should displace anyone, but they alone have the choice.
Instead of complaining that indigenous people don’t have the right to remove you, maybe you should focus on contributing to decolonization so they have a reason to let you stay.
where it is okay for one ethnic group to systemically displace another
Ah the old “reverse ethnic cleansing”… all you white supremacists are coming out to play.
The absolute gall of westerners whose ancestors literally did ethnic cleansing, to then yell that at their victims at the hint of returning stolen land back to indigenous sovereignty.
Basically, read it as “you should kill yourself if you’re not exactly where your ancestors lived 10000 years ago”. That’s what these people seem to think, they just don’t want to say the quiet part out loud.
I live in a country where we have a very large amount of Russians, many of whom completely lack citizenship because they moved here during the soviet occupation so didn’t get automatic Estonian citizenship after our independence, but also haven’t gotten Estonian or Russian citizenship after the fact. This number has decreased over the years because most people have acquired some citizenship, but we still have tens of thousands with no state at all. I can’t imagine simply deporting all of those people. In fact, we’re now giving out citizenship to children of non-citizen parents who have lived in the country for at least 5 years, to avoid creating more stateless people. This is despite the fact that a lot of those people getting citizenship are also the descendants of settlers, with roots in a country hostile to our own. Those people’s entire lives are here, who are we to uproot them just because we were here first? It’s too late now.
I don’t have another country waiting to accept me, and I don’t particularly want to leave the only place I’ve ever lived, so if they want me gone, it is their problem. Are they tossing me in jail because I have the wrong ethnicity? Deporting me to a place I have no connection to?
I have no right to say what they should do and neither do you.
Do you think all indigenous people can do whatever the fuck they want, as long as they are on their own land, and noone has any right to judge their actions?
1930s germans were indigenous people on their own land, after all.
I agree that cultural assimilation requirements and dealing harshly with white nationalists are ok; mass expulsion is not.
And I’m also pretty sure that most native Americans don’t want mass expulsion, so this whole discussion is moot.
The aggressor, in the process of atoning for their atrocities, has no right to say that the recourse proposed by the victim is unreasonable.
We are the colonial aggressors, Indigenous people are the colonized victims.
Let’s say a man and a woman live in the same house, and the man hits the woman. If the man is truly seeking to atone for his crime, and the woman tells him to move out because even seeing his face is traumatic for her, would it be reasonable for the man to complain that he has nowhere else to go? To ask the woman where she thinks he should go? To try and guilt the woman into letting him stay? If he does any of those, is he truly sorry for what he did?
You’re right that most Indigenous people don’t want mass expulsion. We should be incredibly grateful for that and it’s a testament of their compassion and desire for equality among all people, even after all we did to them. What we shouldn’t do is tell them that they can’t tell us to leave or that we’d refuse to leave because we have a rightful claim to this land. Doing so is completely unproductive and will only serve to make us less deserving of staying.
As if indigenous societies never fought wars and claimed land between eachother. Send all of humanity to Africa and let the squirrels and birds take back their land while we’re at it.
Not at the scale colonialism has, no. Skirmishes and even conquest between individual tribes is fundamentally different from the systematic genocide of an entire continent’s population.
At what scale does a genocide become bad enough to deport everyone? Without written history, it’s hard to say exactly how pre-colonial conflics in North America played out, but I’ve found a few sources that suggest that inter-tribe warfare can be just as bloody as any other war (as far as the technology allowed, of course). “Skirmishes between tribes” is quite an understatement.
At what scale? I’d say it’s definitely closer to colonialism than it is to Indigenous wars. No doubt some Indigenous groups were capable of immense cruelty to those around them, but a continent wide ethnic cleansing is something utterly incomprehensible to even the most expansionist Indigenous groups.
Colonialism developed logistics, beauracy, and governing bodies specifically for genocide, which happened over generations. The people in charge of perpetuating it didn’t even know all the people they killed, the concept of those people alone were enough to condemn them. By contrast, even the largest scale Indigenous wars had the combatants reasonably familiar with those they were fighting.
I’ve found a case of recorded genocidal conflict (“with intent to exerminate opposing tribe”), but it was obviously postcolonial (because there are basically no records of precolonial history). I’ll note that both sides were supplied by respective colonial powers, so it could very well be considered a proxy war; however the conflict was waged by the tribes themselves, at their own will. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars
We can’t forget that since the population density of America was much lower than in Europe, it’s hard to compare conflicts apples-to-apples. Killing 10 individuals in a small tribe/village could exterminate nearly 10% their population; a number that would be considered devastating, quasi-genocidal if it happened between european powers.
As for your second point, it brings up a problem I have with your general argument. You argue that Indigenous conflics can be forgiven since the individuals had “no interest in waging a multi-generational genocide”. I can confidently say that I, an North American with European decent, also have no interest in “waging a multi-generational genocide”; why must I be punished for it, then? Nobody gets to choose their ancestry.
(That being said, I acknowldege that systemic racism is still a very big problem today where I live, and I give my vote to whoever can reduce it the most)
The goal is not to punish anyone, nor is the goal to kick everyone out. The only goal of decolonization is to give back control of the land which was forcibly taken. Like Cowbee said, you give them the reigns, and then you let go. The logical extreme of this is that if they wanted everyone to leave, they could in theory, but that’s only a logical extreme and it doesn’t mean it will definitely happen. The majority of Indigenous groups make it pretty clear that’s not what they want out of decolonization.
Indigenous peoples are not interested in punishing you. Most aren’t even interested in having you go anywhere. They’re reasonable people with empathy and compassion. The notion that you were born here not by choice is not lost on them.
I think this thread is focusing way too much on the notion that Indigenous people could force you out of their land and many people are under the assumption that they will definitely treat you worse than the current government treats you for not being Indigenous. But honestly, the way the current government treats even non-Indigenous people is absolute shit and getting worse by the day, so there’s no reason not to think our lives would be better under Indigenous sovereignty.
I recommend the book The Red Deal: Indigenous Action to Save our Earth if you’re interested in what decolonization looks like from the perspective of Indigenous people. They certainly don’t solely think about benefiting themselves.
I really didn’t think I was being subtle here. I’m going to stop “just asking questions” and instead say that I’m surprised to see, in this of all threads, a sincere argument that there are some circumstances where it is okay for one ethnic group to systemically displace another, despite both groups only having that place to claim as a homeland.
Your claim isn’t even close to the magnitude of their claim. They’ve been here for over ten thousand years. They. Own. This. Continent. And. Always. Will.
And again, we displaced them. We are the colonizing class. I am calling for the reversing of what was done to them, which necessarily includes giving them back control over the land. I’m not saying they should displace anyone, but they alone have the choice.
Instead of complaining that indigenous people don’t have the right to remove you, maybe you should focus on contributing to decolonization so they have a reason to let you stay.
Ah the old “reverse ethnic cleansing”… all you white supremacists are coming out to play.
The absolute gall of westerners whose ancestors literally did ethnic cleansing, to then yell that at their victims at the hint of returning stolen land back to indigenous sovereignty.
Basically, read it as “you should kill yourself if you’re not exactly where your ancestors lived 10000 years ago”. That’s what these people seem to think, they just don’t want to say the quiet part out loud.
I live in a country where we have a very large amount of Russians, many of whom completely lack citizenship because they moved here during the soviet occupation so didn’t get automatic Estonian citizenship after our independence, but also haven’t gotten Estonian or Russian citizenship after the fact. This number has decreased over the years because most people have acquired some citizenship, but we still have tens of thousands with no state at all. I can’t imagine simply deporting all of those people. In fact, we’re now giving out citizenship to children of non-citizen parents who have lived in the country for at least 5 years, to avoid creating more stateless people. This is despite the fact that a lot of those people getting citizenship are also the descendants of settlers, with roots in a country hostile to our own. Those people’s entire lives are here, who are we to uproot them just because we were here first? It’s too late now.
You’re talking to someone from .ml.
You should probably choose your battles on this one, the amount of people there that can’t see double standards or hypocrisy is astounding.