Literally give the actual land back
:side-eye-1: bruh indigenous people don’t want to ship the mayos off “back-to-africa” style, but damn well deserve to govern their lands (even just the unseded treaty land that :amerikkka: illegally occipes, if you are really so afraid of white genocide)
That’s hardly “giving it back” then. No shit they should be given heavy reparations and self determination, but telling an individual to “give it back” is just dumb.
Like the comment below about the person’s dad who immigrated to escape the Holocaust. She doesn’t have to get that through to him because there’s nothing that he personally needs to give back.
Yeah it seems best taken as an abstract moral injunction that should be enacted through something like collectivization/redistribution of private property or more realistically just wealth/income, with a focus on giving disproportionately to the indigenous. Giving someone a fake ownership of “land” without displacing hundreds of millions (which is btw a comforting fantasy), instead of the means of production or money, seems less helpful. Sure they should have total control of the concentration camps the US put them in, that’s hardly ‘giving them back their land,’ the slogan becomes totally meaningless then. Better and more achievable to give them the greater part of the means of production. Would love to hear criticism
Tldr: ‘Land back’ seems billed as righting the wrongs done to indigenous peoples by giving them their land back. And if it ends up being white liberals giving an extremely poor set of the population some undeveloped, barren plot of federal land, then it is mere appeasement, not for indigenous but for the liberals.
Basically every struggle currently existing in the world has taken some form of socialism as it’s solution. No one wants to go back to primitive tribal life or destroy all technology. They want equitable and just living. They want the end to colonial and imperial oppression.
They want fucking communism, same as us.
National self-determination doesn’t exist in socialism, nations are abolished, the point of is abolishing the concept of “governing” which in the modern era meant “mediating the contradictions of capital and establishing the will of the ruling class”, rather than establishing new governing structures that are more “democratic” or “representative”, the problem is to do away with the need to mediate class contradictions not reforming the process by which these are mediated, by achieving the destruction of wage labor. such thing as “self-governance” is actively not socialism.
Rather than pushing for universal gains for the working class, including the indigenous working class, you are simply delivering them to unfettered exploitation under a ruling class of their ethnic peers
:yes-comm:
i don’t think anyone is rooting for the class system to survive the revolution, least of all indigenous peoples who have been forced into accordance with said capitalist patriarchal framework.
Land Back
You are spouting empty slogans without really analyzing their content, sure indigenous workers probably don’t, but that’s the thing a government structure is a way of controlling the national capital, and managing a class system. Tell me how you pretend to destroy capitalism and also form a structure that only exists to manage capitalist production at the same time?
National self-determination doesn’t exist in socialism, nations are abolished
idk about that
What do you mean? I’m going to assume no socialists want ethnostates in the future. That means no Israel but also no Palestine.
National self-determination doesn’t exist in socialism
we don’t currently live under socialism
gib the land back, US gubmint
Same argument applies, your “liberation indigenous people” amounts to delivering indigenous working class to capitalists of their own race, what do the working class care about the race of their opresor? the point is to abolish the means by which indigenous workers are opresed, not give them a better more democratic opresor
