|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 28 2019 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 23:21 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:58 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:24 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. If white people born in America are colonizers then so are African Americans. Neither chose the place of their birth. It's people like me who leave Europe that you need to watch out for. Stolen people on stolen land is the phrasing I would use. There is a large contingent of Black people in the US that have adopted colonial ideologies though, skin color (or even the treatment that comes with it) isn't an inoculation to colonial ideologies. If it is possible for land to have an owner then who but the people who were born on the land and make use of it could possibly be that owner? Migration is a part of human society. The children of the migrants are no less entitled than the children of the other migrants who came a bit earlier. Historical ownership of wealth is a bit more tricky because the crimes of the father enrich the son. But as for the land itself, we all own it, or none of us do. We all own it, or none of us do, would be acceptable. Issue is, colonizers insist they own it, and no one else. The capitalists insist that only those with a deed own it, and that deed is traced back to the original crime. I’d be fine with the “colonizers” saying that the land belongs to all colonizers because that’s all of us. The problem here is dead people seizing the means of production from the people who generated the wealth and then granting their kids an exclusive right to it. You’re as much a colonizer of the US as any other born here. Indigenous people didn't replace anyone, so no they are not colonizers. The descendants of stolen people are not colonizers in the sense that decedents of the thieves are simply because we both reside here. But it's true that any just outcome requires amiable resolution with indigenous peoples that could include Black people leaving too. Were we to stay despite the protest of indigenous peoples you're right that we'd be no different (with consideration for circumstances) than descendants of Europeans colonialists. We think we could come to terms though, around the mutual expulsion of colonialists. You're right imo that as a recent immigrant your reluctant embrace of colonialism is different (and potentially more hazardous) than either. Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 23:42 Sent. wrote:On June 28 2019 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
In many places in Canada we make a Aknowledgement Statement to recognize that we are residing on aboriginal land. The loval governments worked with the Elders in Open Call events and Round Table Discussions and was vetted through the Reconciliation Commitee's.
There is a short and long form, here is an example of the short "I would like to acknowledge that we are on
Blackfoot land and would like to give recognition to the Blackfoot people past, present and future."
And the long "The City of acknowledges that we
are gathered on the lands of the Blackfoot
people of the Canadian Plains and pays respect
to the Blackfoot people past, present and
future while recognizing and respecting their
cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship to the
land. The City of is also home to
the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region III."
I bring this up as the name does not matter so much it is the actions you take, and more than that the intention behind the actions you take. It is not calling it America that causes any issues, it is how the people that live their act and their intentions that does. I understand the intention, but isn't such acknowledgement a bigger insult to the descendants of former inhabitants of the area than saying it used to be controlled by tribe X before it was taken by Europeans? You're basically telling them the land is still theirs without doing anything about it. If it's really theirs, why don't "you" give it back? In the US we're trained to see meaningless acknowledgements as significant progress.
“indigenous people didn’t replace anyone”
says who? if you are familiar at all with the well-documented ancient histories of Eurasian migrations and (re)settlements you should be skeptical that indigenous American cultures going back thousands of years were irenic Ur-peoples sprung from the earth. even a basic familiarity with Aztec peoples should disabuse you of that notion.
personally i think the unwarranted extension and reflexive application of “colonizer” and other aspects of postcolonial theory is some of the most uncritical, unhelpful thinking to emerge in recent popular leftism.
|
United States41989 Posts
On June 28 2019 23:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 23:11 Mohdoo wrote:
The way the world seems to work, I expect Williamson to be our Trump and she will turn Texas blue. Williamson came off as a lunatic. The sooner that she gets purged from the race, the better for Democrats.
That was his point.
|
So who drops out after this first debate?
Beto has to be gone right?
Williamson?
Deblaso(sp?)
Yang maybe? Just might not qualify for the next debate
|
On June 29 2019 01:09 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 23:21 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:58 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:24 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. If white people born in America are colonizers then so are African Americans. Neither chose the place of their birth. It's people like me who leave Europe that you need to watch out for. Stolen people on stolen land is the phrasing I would use. There is a large contingent of Black people in the US that have adopted colonial ideologies though, skin color (or even the treatment that comes with it) isn't an inoculation to colonial ideologies. If it is possible for land to have an owner then who but the people who were born on the land and make use of it could possibly be that owner? Migration is a part of human society. The children of the migrants are no less entitled than the children of the other migrants who came a bit earlier. Historical ownership of wealth is a bit more tricky because the crimes of the father enrich the son. But as for the land itself, we all own it, or none of us do. We all own it, or none of us do, would be acceptable. Issue is, colonizers insist they own it, and no one else. The capitalists insist that only those with a deed own it, and that deed is traced back to the original crime. I’d be fine with the “colonizers” saying that the land belongs to all colonizers because that’s all of us. The problem here is dead people seizing the means of production from the people who generated the wealth and then granting their kids an exclusive right to it. You’re as much a colonizer of the US as any other born here. Indigenous people didn't replace anyone, so no they are not colonizers. The descendants of stolen people are not colonizers in the sense that decedents of the thieves are simply because we both reside here. But it's true that any just outcome requires amiable resolution with indigenous peoples that could include Black people leaving too. Were we to stay despite the protest of indigenous peoples you're right that we'd be no different (with consideration for circumstances) than descendants of Europeans colonialists. We think we could come to terms though, around the mutual expulsion of colonialists. You're right imo that as a recent immigrant your reluctant embrace of colonialism is different (and potentially more hazardous) than either. On June 28 2019 23:42 Sent. wrote:On June 28 2019 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
In many places in Canada we make a Aknowledgement Statement to recognize that we are residing on aboriginal land. The loval governments worked with the Elders in Open Call events and Round Table Discussions and was vetted through the Reconciliation Commitee's.
There is a short and long form, here is an example of the short "I would like to acknowledge that we are on
Blackfoot land and would like to give recognition to the Blackfoot people past, present and future."
And the long "The City of acknowledges that we
are gathered on the lands of the Blackfoot
people of the Canadian Plains and pays respect
to the Blackfoot people past, present and
future while recognizing and respecting their
cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship to the
land. The City of is also home to
the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region III."
I bring this up as the name does not matter so much it is the actions you take, and more than that the intention behind the actions you take. It is not calling it America that causes any issues, it is how the people that live their act and their intentions that does. I understand the intention, but isn't such acknowledgement a bigger insult to the descendants of former inhabitants of the area than saying it used to be controlled by tribe X before it was taken by Europeans? You're basically telling them the land is still theirs without doing anything about it. If it's really theirs, why don't "you" give it back? In the US we're trained to see meaningless acknowledgements as significant progress. “indigenous people didn’t replace anyone” says who? if you are familiar at all with the well-documented ancient histories of Eurasian migrations and (re)settlements you should be skeptical that indigenous American cultures going back thousands of years were irenic Ur-peoples sprung from the earth. even a basic familiarity with Aztec peoples should disabuse you of that notion. personally i think the unwarranted extension and reflexive application of “colonizer” and other aspects of postcolonial theory is some of the most uncritical, unhelpful thinking to emerge in recent popular leftism.
I don't really disagree with you but my experience tells me that different approaches and framing must be used along the path from more conservative/liberal ideologies. Admittedly I haven't done any comprehensive study of various methods effectiveness and am relying on my personal perception and minimal theory/scientific investigation.
That's to say it's easier to get people to investigate their assumptions when I as an oppositional figure adopt them in defense of an argument they object to.
I forget where we left off on our conversation on using colonial theory but it's one I'm open to reopening. To your point, and Kwark's, the relative positions of various people's other than overt colonialists themselves is unsettled in general.
To the perception of the US I found an interesting geopolitical view based on game theory I think many here would find insightful. Essentially he argues that as a result of a failure to distinguish between finite "games" and infinite "games" and the appropriate accompanying strategies, the US is viewed as a disheveled mess by much of the world for reasons beyond the cosmetic.
+ Show Spoiler + FWIW I think it also indicts the functionality of amoral foreign policy as advocated by folks like xDaunt
|
I was watching the debate last night, and the person I was watching with kept whispering "trust the orb, it sees all" whenever Williamson was speaking.
Additionally, I think Buttegieg is going to steal huge amounts of Beto voters and emerge as the uncontested moderate champion.
|
United States41989 Posts
On June 28 2019 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 23:21 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:58 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:24 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. If white people born in America are colonizers then so are African Americans. Neither chose the place of their birth. It's people like me who leave Europe that you need to watch out for. Stolen people on stolen land is the phrasing I would use. There is a large contingent of Black people in the US that have adopted colonial ideologies though, skin color (or even the treatment that comes with it) isn't an inoculation to colonial ideologies. If it is possible for land to have an owner then who but the people who were born on the land and make use of it could possibly be that owner? Migration is a part of human society. The children of the migrants are no less entitled than the children of the other migrants who came a bit earlier. Historical ownership of wealth is a bit more tricky because the crimes of the father enrich the son. But as for the land itself, we all own it, or none of us do. We all own it, or none of us do, would be acceptable. Issue is, colonizers insist they own it, and no one else. The capitalists insist that only those with a deed own it, and that deed is traced back to the original crime. I’d be fine with the “colonizers” saying that the land belongs to all colonizers because that’s all of us. The problem here is dead people seizing the means of production from the people who generated the wealth and then granting their kids an exclusive right to it. You’re as much a colonizer of the US as any other born here. Indigenous people didn't replace anyone, so no they are not colonizers. The descendants of stolen people are not colonizers in the sense that decedents of the thieves are simply because we both reside here. But it's true that any just outcome requires amiable resolution with indigenous peoples that could include Black people leaving too. Were we to stay despite the protest of indigenous peoples you're right that we'd be no different (with consideration for circumstances) than descendants of Europeans colonialists. We think we could come to terms though, around the mutual expulsion of colonialists. You're right imo that as a recent immigrant your reluctant embrace of colonialism is different (and potentially more hazardous) than either. Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 23:42 Sent. wrote:On June 28 2019 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
In many places in Canada we make a Aknowledgement Statement to recognize that we are residing on aboriginal land. The loval governments worked with the Elders in Open Call events and Round Table Discussions and was vetted through the Reconciliation Commitee's.
There is a short and long form, here is an example of the short "I would like to acknowledge that we are on
Blackfoot land and would like to give recognition to the Blackfoot people past, present and future."
And the long "The City of acknowledges that we
are gathered on the lands of the Blackfoot
people of the Canadian Plains and pays respect
to the Blackfoot people past, present and
future while recognizing and respecting their
cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship to the
land. The City of is also home to
the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region III."
I bring this up as the name does not matter so much it is the actions you take, and more than that the intention behind the actions you take. It is not calling it America that causes any issues, it is how the people that live their act and their intentions that does. I understand the intention, but isn't such acknowledgement a bigger insult to the descendants of former inhabitants of the area than saying it used to be controlled by tribe X before it was taken by Europeans? You're basically telling them the land is still theirs without doing anything about it. If it's really theirs, why don't "you" give it back? In the US we're trained to see meaningless acknowledgements as significant progress.
They’re not a homogeneous group. They waged wars of conquest with each other just like everyone else. There’s a temptation to divide humanity into white, black, misc Arabs, Indian, Asian, and misc indigenous and then conclude that in the Americas white and black are land thieves while misc indigenous are rightful owners.
That’s a false oversimplification. Everyone is on land they took from someone. If a tribe steals land from another and then ten years later it’s colonized by Europeans it would be false to proclaim the most recent owners as the true owners for perpetuity. They stole it from others who stole it from others who stole it from others until you get so far back that we’re all descended from a common ancestor and none of this means anything.
The people born to the land who make use of the land have claim to it. All of them. Not just the ones descended from an asshole with the pointiest stick and a fetish for flags. We can acknowledge the crimes against indigenous peoples without creating a spiritual true owners of land as if this is a Disney movie and the rocks speak to members of any tribe.
|
On June 29 2019 01:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 00:59 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On June 28 2019 20:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
This is chilling. The fact that the POTUS discusses how great silencing the press would be with a dictator that jails and kills opposing journalists is absolutely appalling.
Why don’t republicans react on shit like that? It should be way beyond partisanship. I just don’t get those people. It's an absolute disgrace. It's in line with his Kashoggi response. He's a fanboy of people that get their critics murdered. Why is he still leading the country... Because his supporters wish they could do the same. Remember, the 'fake media' is the enemy of the people according to them.
Not everyone has joined the cult. There should easily be a majority that doesn't like their leader praising repressive autocrats and chopped up journalists. It's just apathy/tiredness to the endless bad stuff Trump says.
It's truly amazing how it's better to say a lot of bad shit rather than a little. People are still looking for all the skeletons in the new candidates closets, meanwhile Trump's walking around with an 8000 point Tomb King army and it's just 'meh'.
|
On June 29 2019 01:20 IyMoon wrote:
So who drops out after this first debate?
Beto has to be gone right?
Williamson?
Deblaso(sp?)
Yang maybe? Just might not qualify for the next debate
No one's necessarily done yet. It was only one debate. But it is clear that of the main candidates, Beto and Biden got savaged. Frankly, I don't see Beto making a recovery, though he'll linger for a while as a bad joke. I've long stated that I don't see Biden getting the nomination, but I don't think he's done yet. The campaign is young.
|
On June 29 2019 01:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 23:21 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:58 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:24 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. If white people born in America are colonizers then so are African Americans. Neither chose the place of their birth. It's people like me who leave Europe that you need to watch out for. Stolen people on stolen land is the phrasing I would use. There is a large contingent of Black people in the US that have adopted colonial ideologies though, skin color (or even the treatment that comes with it) isn't an inoculation to colonial ideologies. If it is possible for land to have an owner then who but the people who were born on the land and make use of it could possibly be that owner? Migration is a part of human society. The children of the migrants are no less entitled than the children of the other migrants who came a bit earlier. Historical ownership of wealth is a bit more tricky because the crimes of the father enrich the son. But as for the land itself, we all own it, or none of us do. We all own it, or none of us do, would be acceptable. Issue is, colonizers insist they own it, and no one else. The capitalists insist that only those with a deed own it, and that deed is traced back to the original crime. I’d be fine with the “colonizers” saying that the land belongs to all colonizers because that’s all of us. The problem here is dead people seizing the means of production from the people who generated the wealth and then granting their kids an exclusive right to it. You’re as much a colonizer of the US as any other born here. Indigenous people didn't replace anyone, so no they are not colonizers. The descendants of stolen people are not colonizers in the sense that decedents of the thieves are simply because we both reside here. But it's true that any just outcome requires amiable resolution with indigenous peoples that could include Black people leaving too. Were we to stay despite the protest of indigenous peoples you're right that we'd be no different (with consideration for circumstances) than descendants of Europeans colonialists. We think we could come to terms though, around the mutual expulsion of colonialists. You're right imo that as a recent immigrant your reluctant embrace of colonialism is different (and potentially more hazardous) than either. On June 28 2019 23:42 Sent. wrote:On June 28 2019 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
In many places in Canada we make a Aknowledgement Statement to recognize that we are residing on aboriginal land. The loval governments worked with the Elders in Open Call events and Round Table Discussions and was vetted through the Reconciliation Commitee's.
There is a short and long form, here is an example of the short "I would like to acknowledge that we are on
Blackfoot land and would like to give recognition to the Blackfoot people past, present and future."
And the long "The City of acknowledges that we
are gathered on the lands of the Blackfoot
people of the Canadian Plains and pays respect
to the Blackfoot people past, present and
future while recognizing and respecting their
cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship to the
land. The City of is also home to
the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region III."
I bring this up as the name does not matter so much it is the actions you take, and more than that the intention behind the actions you take. It is not calling it America that causes any issues, it is how the people that live their act and their intentions that does. I understand the intention, but isn't such acknowledgement a bigger insult to the descendants of former inhabitants of the area than saying it used to be controlled by tribe X before it was taken by Europeans? You're basically telling them the land is still theirs without doing anything about it. If it's really theirs, why don't "you" give it back? In the US we're trained to see meaningless acknowledgements as significant progress. They’re not a homogeneous group. They waged wars of conquest with each other just like everyone else. There’s a temptation to divide humanity into white, black, misc Arabs, Indian, Asian, and misc indigenous and then conclude that in the Americas white and black are land thieves while misc indigenous are rightful owners. That’s a false oversimplification. Everyone is on land they took from someone. If a tribe steals land from another and then ten years later it’s colonized by Europeans it would be false to proclaim the most recent owners as the true owners for perpetuity. They stole it from others who stole it from others who stole it from others until you get so far back that we’re all descended from a common ancestor and none of this means anything. The people born to the land who make use of the land have claim to it. All of them. Not just the ones descended from an asshole with the pointiest stick and a fetish for flags. We can acknowledge the crimes against indigenous peoples without creating a spiritual true owners of land as if this is a Disney movie and the rocks speak to members of any tribe.
What I think is key in there is this:
We can acknowledge the crimes against indigenous peoples without creating a spiritual true owners of land
That's the rub you blame on capitalists. Fair enough, but then there is no righteous concept of ownership under capitalism and it must be replaced.
|
On June 29 2019 01:32 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 01:03 Gorsameth wrote:On June 29 2019 00:59 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On June 28 2019 20:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1144523828921372672This is chilling. The fact that the POTUS discusses how great silencing the press would be with a dictator that jails and kills opposing journalists is absolutely appalling. Why don’t republicans react on shit like that? It should be way beyond partisanship. I just don’t get those people. It's an absolute disgrace. It's in line with his Kashoggi response. He's a fanboy of people that get their critics murdered. Why is he still leading the country... Because his supporters wish they could do the same. Remember, the 'fake media' is the enemy of the people according to them. Not everyone has joined the cult. There should easily be a majority that doesn't like their leader praising repressive autocrats and chopped up journalists. It's just apathy/tiredness to the endless bad stuff Trump says. It's truly amazing how it's better to say a lot of bad shit rather than a little. People are still looking for all the skeletons in the new candidates closets, meanwhile Trump's walking around with an 8000 point Tomb King army and it's just 'meh'. A silent majority that conveniently doesn't say anything to makes use the 'regrettable' situation while it suits them.
Sorry if I don't assume their silence to be displeasure.
If this majority did exist I would expect a lot more Republican congressmen to be in opposition of Trump to satisfy their majority of displeased constituents.
|
you cannot base an ethics of anti-colonialism in disastrously flawed historical claims and mythical Ursprüngen. it has to become an ethics of non-coercion and respect situated in the present. to the extent that we look to and reinterpret the past for the present it has to be based in a coherent ethical framework concerning responsibility, and ideally it would reject harmful, reductive essentializing even when it might appear politically expedient
|
On June 29 2019 01:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 01:20 IyMoon wrote:
So who drops out after this first debate?
Beto has to be gone right?
Williamson?
Deblaso(sp?)
Yang maybe? Just might not qualify for the next debate No one's necessarily done yet. It was only one debate. But it is clear that of the main candidates, Beto and Biden got savaged. Frankly, I don't see Beto making a recovery, though he'll linger for a while as a bad joke. I've long stated that I don't see Biden getting the nomination, but I don't think he's done yet. The campaign is young.
Do you think anyone drops out between now and debate number 2?
Do you think some people dont make debate number 2 which is pretty much a drop out anyway
|
On June 29 2019 01:41 IgnE wrote:
you cannot base an ethics of anti-colonialism in disastrously flawed historical claims and mythical Ursprüngen. it has to become an ethics of non-coercion and respect situated in the present. to the extent that we look to and reinterpret the past for the present it has to be based in a coherent ethical framework concerning responsibility, and ideally it would reject harmful, reductive essentializing even when it might appear politically expedient
I'm just a man Igne, I'm only a man. I do better when I can.
You wanna do some more of the heavy lifting or just critique from the sidelines (speaking about here, with recognition of your increased efforts as of late)?
On June 29 2019 01:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 01:09 IgnE wrote:On June 28 2019 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 23:21 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:58 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:24 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. If white people born in America are colonizers then so are African Americans. Neither chose the place of their birth. It's people like me who leave Europe that you need to watch out for. Stolen people on stolen land is the phrasing I would use. There is a large contingent of Black people in the US that have adopted colonial ideologies though, skin color (or even the treatment that comes with it) isn't an inoculation to colonial ideologies. If it is possible for land to have an owner then who but the people who were born on the land and make use of it could possibly be that owner? Migration is a part of human society. The children of the migrants are no less entitled than the children of the other migrants who came a bit earlier. Historical ownership of wealth is a bit more tricky because the crimes of the father enrich the son. But as for the land itself, we all own it, or none of us do. We all own it, or none of us do, would be acceptable. Issue is, colonizers insist they own it, and no one else. The capitalists insist that only those with a deed own it, and that deed is traced back to the original crime. I’d be fine with the “colonizers” saying that the land belongs to all colonizers because that’s all of us. The problem here is dead people seizing the means of production from the people who generated the wealth and then granting their kids an exclusive right to it. You’re as much a colonizer of the US as any other born here. Indigenous people didn't replace anyone, so no they are not colonizers. The descendants of stolen people are not colonizers in the sense that decedents of the thieves are simply because we both reside here. But it's true that any just outcome requires amiable resolution with indigenous peoples that could include Black people leaving too. Were we to stay despite the protest of indigenous peoples you're right that we'd be no different (with consideration for circumstances) than descendants of Europeans colonialists. We think we could come to terms though, around the mutual expulsion of colonialists. You're right imo that as a recent immigrant your reluctant embrace of colonialism is different (and potentially more hazardous) than either. On June 28 2019 23:42 Sent. wrote:On June 28 2019 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
In many places in Canada we make a Aknowledgement Statement to recognize that we are residing on aboriginal land. The loval governments worked with the Elders in Open Call events and Round Table Discussions and was vetted through the Reconciliation Commitee's.
There is a short and long form, here is an example of the short "I would like to acknowledge that we are on
Blackfoot land and would like to give recognition to the Blackfoot people past, present and future."
And the long "The City of acknowledges that we
are gathered on the lands of the Blackfoot
people of the Canadian Plains and pays respect
to the Blackfoot people past, present and
future while recognizing and respecting their
cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship to the
land. The City of is also home to
the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region III."
I bring this up as the name does not matter so much it is the actions you take, and more than that the intention behind the actions you take. It is not calling it America that causes any issues, it is how the people that live their act and their intentions that does. I understand the intention, but isn't such acknowledgement a bigger insult to the descendants of former inhabitants of the area than saying it used to be controlled by tribe X before it was taken by Europeans? You're basically telling them the land is still theirs without doing anything about it. If it's really theirs, why don't "you" give it back? In the US we're trained to see meaningless acknowledgements as significant progress. “indigenous people didn’t replace anyone” says who? if you are familiar at all with the well-documented ancient histories of Eurasian migrations and (re)settlements you should be skeptical that indigenous American cultures going back thousands of years were irenic Ur-peoples sprung from the earth. even a basic familiarity with Aztec peoples should disabuse you of that notion. personally i think the unwarranted extension and reflexive application of “colonizer” and other aspects of postcolonial theory is some of the most uncritical, unhelpful thinking to emerge in recent popular leftism. The critical weak link in leftist anti-American theories -- whether it be this colonialism nonsense or the argument that America is foundationally evil because it legalized slavery on its founding -- is their complete lack of historical perspective. Human history is a history of warfare and cultural/national genocide. Multiculturalism as a value has been around for roughly 2 minutes, and it is only valued in some segments of the Western world. The biggest irony is that these leftists fail to understand that the Western order that they seek to destroy is precisely what has enabled them to exist in the first place. It's all quite insane.
Have at it. Personally I think people investigating to what degree they agree or disagree with what xDaunt is saying there is the best I can hope for out of a conversation like this. Feel free to renew my revolutionary spirit in whatever way you can comrade lol.
|
On June 29 2019 01:09 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 23:21 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:58 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:24 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. If white people born in America are colonizers then so are African Americans. Neither chose the place of their birth. It's people like me who leave Europe that you need to watch out for. Stolen people on stolen land is the phrasing I would use. There is a large contingent of Black people in the US that have adopted colonial ideologies though, skin color (or even the treatment that comes with it) isn't an inoculation to colonial ideologies. If it is possible for land to have an owner then who but the people who were born on the land and make use of it could possibly be that owner? Migration is a part of human society. The children of the migrants are no less entitled than the children of the other migrants who came a bit earlier. Historical ownership of wealth is a bit more tricky because the crimes of the father enrich the son. But as for the land itself, we all own it, or none of us do. We all own it, or none of us do, would be acceptable. Issue is, colonizers insist they own it, and no one else. The capitalists insist that only those with a deed own it, and that deed is traced back to the original crime. I’d be fine with the “colonizers” saying that the land belongs to all colonizers because that’s all of us. The problem here is dead people seizing the means of production from the people who generated the wealth and then granting their kids an exclusive right to it. You’re as much a colonizer of the US as any other born here. Indigenous people didn't replace anyone, so no they are not colonizers. The descendants of stolen people are not colonizers in the sense that decedents of the thieves are simply because we both reside here. But it's true that any just outcome requires amiable resolution with indigenous peoples that could include Black people leaving too. Were we to stay despite the protest of indigenous peoples you're right that we'd be no different (with consideration for circumstances) than descendants of Europeans colonialists. We think we could come to terms though, around the mutual expulsion of colonialists. You're right imo that as a recent immigrant your reluctant embrace of colonialism is different (and potentially more hazardous) than either. On June 28 2019 23:42 Sent. wrote:On June 28 2019 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
In many places in Canada we make a Aknowledgement Statement to recognize that we are residing on aboriginal land. The loval governments worked with the Elders in Open Call events and Round Table Discussions and was vetted through the Reconciliation Commitee's.
There is a short and long form, here is an example of the short "I would like to acknowledge that we are on
Blackfoot land and would like to give recognition to the Blackfoot people past, present and future."
And the long "The City of acknowledges that we
are gathered on the lands of the Blackfoot
people of the Canadian Plains and pays respect
to the Blackfoot people past, present and
future while recognizing and respecting their
cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship to the
land. The City of is also home to
the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region III."
I bring this up as the name does not matter so much it is the actions you take, and more than that the intention behind the actions you take. It is not calling it America that causes any issues, it is how the people that live their act and their intentions that does. I understand the intention, but isn't such acknowledgement a bigger insult to the descendants of former inhabitants of the area than saying it used to be controlled by tribe X before it was taken by Europeans? You're basically telling them the land is still theirs without doing anything about it. If it's really theirs, why don't "you" give it back? In the US we're trained to see meaningless acknowledgements as significant progress. “indigenous people didn’t replace anyone” says who? if you are familiar at all with the well-documented ancient histories of Eurasian migrations and (re)settlements you should be skeptical that indigenous American cultures going back thousands of years were irenic Ur-peoples sprung from the earth. even a basic familiarity with Aztec peoples should disabuse you of that notion. personally i think the unwarranted extension and reflexive application of “colonizer” and other aspects of postcolonial theory is some of the most uncritical, unhelpful thinking to emerge in recent popular leftism.
The critical weak link in leftist anti-American theories -- whether it be this colonialism nonsense or the argument that America is foundationally evil because it legalized slavery on its founding -- is their complete lack of historical perspective. Human history is a history of warfare and cultural/national genocide. Multiculturalism as a value has been around for roughly 2 minutes, and it is only valued in some segments of the Western world. The biggest irony is that these leftists fail to understand that the Western order that they seek to destroy is precisely what has enabled them to exist in the first place. It's all quite insane.
|
On June 29 2019 00:59 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 20:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1144523828921372672This is chilling. The fact that the POTUS discusses how great silencing the press would be with a dictator that jails and kills opposing journalists is absolutely appalling. Why don’t republicans react on shit like that? It should be way beyond partisanship. I just don’t get those people. It's an absolute disgrace. It's in line with his Kashoggi response. He's a fanboy of people that get their critics murdered. Why is he still leading the country...
He says, in the sense of a command, "get rid of them," while speaking to a person who murders journalists and therefore "doesnt have the fake news problem," on the anniversary of the Annapolis newsroom massacre. The dog whistle is clear, and it comes into the mind of all observers.
|
On June 29 2019 01:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 01:09 IgnE wrote:On June 28 2019 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 23:21 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:58 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:24 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. If white people born in America are colonizers then so are African Americans. Neither chose the place of their birth. It's people like me who leave Europe that you need to watch out for. Stolen people on stolen land is the phrasing I would use. There is a large contingent of Black people in the US that have adopted colonial ideologies though, skin color (or even the treatment that comes with it) isn't an inoculation to colonial ideologies. If it is possible for land to have an owner then who but the people who were born on the land and make use of it could possibly be that owner? Migration is a part of human society. The children of the migrants are no less entitled than the children of the other migrants who came a bit earlier. Historical ownership of wealth is a bit more tricky because the crimes of the father enrich the son. But as for the land itself, we all own it, or none of us do. We all own it, or none of us do, would be acceptable. Issue is, colonizers insist they own it, and no one else. The capitalists insist that only those with a deed own it, and that deed is traced back to the original crime. I’d be fine with the “colonizers” saying that the land belongs to all colonizers because that’s all of us. The problem here is dead people seizing the means of production from the people who generated the wealth and then granting their kids an exclusive right to it. You’re as much a colonizer of the US as any other born here. Indigenous people didn't replace anyone, so no they are not colonizers. The descendants of stolen people are not colonizers in the sense that decedents of the thieves are simply because we both reside here. But it's true that any just outcome requires amiable resolution with indigenous peoples that could include Black people leaving too. Were we to stay despite the protest of indigenous peoples you're right that we'd be no different (with consideration for circumstances) than descendants of Europeans colonialists. We think we could come to terms though, around the mutual expulsion of colonialists. You're right imo that as a recent immigrant your reluctant embrace of colonialism is different (and potentially more hazardous) than either. On June 28 2019 23:42 Sent. wrote:On June 28 2019 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
In many places in Canada we make a Aknowledgement Statement to recognize that we are residing on aboriginal land. The loval governments worked with the Elders in Open Call events and Round Table Discussions and was vetted through the Reconciliation Commitee's.
There is a short and long form, here is an example of the short "I would like to acknowledge that we are on
Blackfoot land and would like to give recognition to the Blackfoot people past, present and future."
And the long "The City of acknowledges that we
are gathered on the lands of the Blackfoot
people of the Canadian Plains and pays respect
to the Blackfoot people past, present and
future while recognizing and respecting their
cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship to the
land. The City of is also home to
the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region III."
I bring this up as the name does not matter so much it is the actions you take, and more than that the intention behind the actions you take. It is not calling it America that causes any issues, it is how the people that live their act and their intentions that does. I understand the intention, but isn't such acknowledgement a bigger insult to the descendants of former inhabitants of the area than saying it used to be controlled by tribe X before it was taken by Europeans? You're basically telling them the land is still theirs without doing anything about it. If it's really theirs, why don't "you" give it back? In the US we're trained to see meaningless acknowledgements as significant progress. “indigenous people didn’t replace anyone” says who? if you are familiar at all with the well-documented ancient histories of Eurasian migrations and (re)settlements you should be skeptical that indigenous American cultures going back thousands of years were irenic Ur-peoples sprung from the earth. even a basic familiarity with Aztec peoples should disabuse you of that notion. personally i think the unwarranted extension and reflexive application of “colonizer” and other aspects of postcolonial theory is some of the most uncritical, unhelpful thinking to emerge in recent popular leftism. The critical weak link in leftist anti-American theories -- whether it be this colonialism nonsense or the argument that America is foundationally evil because it legalized slavery on its founding -- is their complete lack of historical perspective. Human history is a history of warfare and cultural/national genocide. Multiculturalism as a value has been around for roughly 2 minutes, and it is only valued in some segments of the Western world. The biggest irony is that these leftists fail to understand that the Western order that they seek to destroy is precisely what has enabled them to exist in the first place. It's all quite insane.
Womens suffrage has existed for about two minutes relatively speaking. Human history is a history of subjugation of women.
|
United States41989 Posts
On June 29 2019 00:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 00:20 Gorsameth wrote:On June 29 2019 00:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2019 00:09 Acrofales wrote:On June 28 2019 22:13 Gahlo wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. Wouldn't that be making us unduely taking exclusive use of colonizing/settling? We aren't the only ones to do it. On June 28 2019 22:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 21:57 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 21:18 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Wouldn't "Americans" be an accurate descriptor for peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina? Accurate but not useful, because "peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina" isn't what "americans" is used for in almost all contexts. It's the trouble with words being able to carry multiple meanings, which is most words in most languagues. I think it's worth investigating why US citizens feel entitled to the exclusive ownership of the term "Americans" and why those generally excluded, might not want the title. "American" is really the only good citizen name for the country name being USA. The country name being USA I would chalk up to historical accident (aka, the US founding fathers couldn't think of anything better). Edit: "Estadunidences" is actually used in portuguese and doesn't actually sound the worst. It's too bad because we lose the grouping category "americans", but I'm not sure this grouping category is that useful to begin with given the fundamental differences between nations of the Americas. More relevant categories might be Spanish/Portuguese/English America, South/North/Central America, or w/e. I personally have no need to call myself "american". In a few decades, depending on how things go in the EU, the same thing might start happening there. Could be that new generation start refering people from the EU as "europeans", to the detriment of non-EU european nations. Well, I don't think this is really probable because some measure of nationalism will always live on, but it's a possibility. The entitlement really does seem to boil down to nothing of substance, but rather convenience, superficial appeals, and basically whining that "I don't wanna change". And if "American" is loosed up that's nothing more than conceding to the superficial appeal of Mexicans that had stake in land before the US took it. Why are we talking about North Americans as if they are the only Americans? If we're goint to loosen up the term "American" then what about Brazilians, or Peruvians, either of which have a longer history of colonization that the USA (but not longer than Mexico). That said, this argument is stupid. I have lived in Brazil. Americano is perfectly accepted and means someone from the USA, and not someone from the Americas unless the context is very explicitly the latter. In (Latin American) Spanish, Estadounidense exists and is used, but not as much as Americano, or more derogatively Gringo. I mean... who actually cares? I don't hear Canadians complain either that they are excluded in the term American, and they are rich and white. The other part of what I thought was worth investigation was why other people's regions are referred to as X America but they have no desire to adopt the moniker "American" or be included when it's used generically. Which I think Howie got, and responded along the lines of what I was thinking made sense. The backlash and "this is a dumb conversation" reaction is kinda why I think it's worth thinking about. You get less backlash and dumb conversation remarks (and I agree it is a dumb conversation) when you make it clearer what your asking. And why don't other people want to adopt the moniker of 'American'?
Because its basically a derogatory term in the rest of the world. They don't want to be associated with morbidly obese sweatpants wearers.And yes this is not what all 'Americans' are like but that's stereotypes for ya. This is such nonsense. I've been all over the world. Americans Dollars are generally liked.
|
United States41989 Posts
On June 29 2019 01:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 01:31 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 23:21 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:58 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:24 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. If white people born in America are colonizers then so are African Americans. Neither chose the place of their birth. It's people like me who leave Europe that you need to watch out for. Stolen people on stolen land is the phrasing I would use. There is a large contingent of Black people in the US that have adopted colonial ideologies though, skin color (or even the treatment that comes with it) isn't an inoculation to colonial ideologies. If it is possible for land to have an owner then who but the people who were born on the land and make use of it could possibly be that owner? Migration is a part of human society. The children of the migrants are no less entitled than the children of the other migrants who came a bit earlier. Historical ownership of wealth is a bit more tricky because the crimes of the father enrich the son. But as for the land itself, we all own it, or none of us do. We all own it, or none of us do, would be acceptable. Issue is, colonizers insist they own it, and no one else. The capitalists insist that only those with a deed own it, and that deed is traced back to the original crime. I’d be fine with the “colonizers” saying that the land belongs to all colonizers because that’s all of us. The problem here is dead people seizing the means of production from the people who generated the wealth and then granting their kids an exclusive right to it. You’re as much a colonizer of the US as any other born here. Indigenous people didn't replace anyone, so no they are not colonizers. The descendants of stolen people are not colonizers in the sense that decedents of the thieves are simply because we both reside here. But it's true that any just outcome requires amiable resolution with indigenous peoples that could include Black people leaving too. Were we to stay despite the protest of indigenous peoples you're right that we'd be no different (with consideration for circumstances) than descendants of Europeans colonialists. We think we could come to terms though, around the mutual expulsion of colonialists. You're right imo that as a recent immigrant your reluctant embrace of colonialism is different (and potentially more hazardous) than either. On June 28 2019 23:42 Sent. wrote:On June 28 2019 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
In many places in Canada we make a Aknowledgement Statement to recognize that we are residing on aboriginal land. The loval governments worked with the Elders in Open Call events and Round Table Discussions and was vetted through the Reconciliation Commitee's.
There is a short and long form, here is an example of the short "I would like to acknowledge that we are on
Blackfoot land and would like to give recognition to the Blackfoot people past, present and future."
And the long "The City of acknowledges that we
are gathered on the lands of the Blackfoot
people of the Canadian Plains and pays respect
to the Blackfoot people past, present and
future while recognizing and respecting their
cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship to the
land. The City of is also home to
the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region III."
I bring this up as the name does not matter so much it is the actions you take, and more than that the intention behind the actions you take. It is not calling it America that causes any issues, it is how the people that live their act and their intentions that does. I understand the intention, but isn't such acknowledgement a bigger insult to the descendants of former inhabitants of the area than saying it used to be controlled by tribe X before it was taken by Europeans? You're basically telling them the land is still theirs without doing anything about it. If it's really theirs, why don't "you" give it back? In the US we're trained to see meaningless acknowledgements as significant progress. They’re not a homogeneous group. They waged wars of conquest with each other just like everyone else. There’s a temptation to divide humanity into white, black, misc Arabs, Indian, Asian, and misc indigenous and then conclude that in the Americas white and black are land thieves while misc indigenous are rightful owners. That’s a false oversimplification. Everyone is on land they took from someone. If a tribe steals land from another and then ten years later it’s colonized by Europeans it would be false to proclaim the most recent owners as the true owners for perpetuity. They stole it from others who stole it from others who stole it from others until you get so far back that we’re all descended from a common ancestor and none of this means anything. The people born to the land who make use of the land have claim to it. All of them. Not just the ones descended from an asshole with the pointiest stick and a fetish for flags. We can acknowledge the crimes against indigenous peoples without creating a spiritual true owners of land as if this is a Disney movie and the rocks speak to members of any tribe. What I think is key in there is this: Show nested quote +We can acknowledge the crimes against indigenous peoples without creating a spiritual true owners of land That's the rub you blame on capitalists. Fair enough, but then there is no righteous concept of ownership under capitalism and it must be replaced.
You, me, and Thomas Jefferson again find ourselves in agreement.
|
On June 29 2019 01:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 01:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2019 01:31 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 23:21 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:58 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:24 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. If white people born in America are colonizers then so are African Americans. Neither chose the place of their birth. It's people like me who leave Europe that you need to watch out for. Stolen people on stolen land is the phrasing I would use. There is a large contingent of Black people in the US that have adopted colonial ideologies though, skin color (or even the treatment that comes with it) isn't an inoculation to colonial ideologies. If it is possible for land to have an owner then who but the people who were born on the land and make use of it could possibly be that owner? Migration is a part of human society. The children of the migrants are no less entitled than the children of the other migrants who came a bit earlier. Historical ownership of wealth is a bit more tricky because the crimes of the father enrich the son. But as for the land itself, we all own it, or none of us do. We all own it, or none of us do, would be acceptable. Issue is, colonizers insist they own it, and no one else. The capitalists insist that only those with a deed own it, and that deed is traced back to the original crime. I’d be fine with the “colonizers” saying that the land belongs to all colonizers because that’s all of us. The problem here is dead people seizing the means of production from the people who generated the wealth and then granting their kids an exclusive right to it. You’re as much a colonizer of the US as any other born here. Indigenous people didn't replace anyone, so no they are not colonizers. The descendants of stolen people are not colonizers in the sense that decedents of the thieves are simply because we both reside here. But it's true that any just outcome requires amiable resolution with indigenous peoples that could include Black people leaving too. Were we to stay despite the protest of indigenous peoples you're right that we'd be no different (with consideration for circumstances) than descendants of Europeans colonialists. We think we could come to terms though, around the mutual expulsion of colonialists. You're right imo that as a recent immigrant your reluctant embrace of colonialism is different (and potentially more hazardous) than either. On June 28 2019 23:42 Sent. wrote:On June 28 2019 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
In many places in Canada we make a Aknowledgement Statement to recognize that we are residing on aboriginal land. The loval governments worked with the Elders in Open Call events and Round Table Discussions and was vetted through the Reconciliation Commitee's.
There is a short and long form, here is an example of the short "I would like to acknowledge that we are on
Blackfoot land and would like to give recognition to the Blackfoot people past, present and future."
And the long "The City of acknowledges that we
are gathered on the lands of the Blackfoot
people of the Canadian Plains and pays respect
to the Blackfoot people past, present and
future while recognizing and respecting their
cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship to the
land. The City of is also home to
the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region III."
I bring this up as the name does not matter so much it is the actions you take, and more than that the intention behind the actions you take. It is not calling it America that causes any issues, it is how the people that live their act and their intentions that does. I understand the intention, but isn't such acknowledgement a bigger insult to the descendants of former inhabitants of the area than saying it used to be controlled by tribe X before it was taken by Europeans? You're basically telling them the land is still theirs without doing anything about it. If it's really theirs, why don't "you" give it back? In the US we're trained to see meaningless acknowledgements as significant progress. They’re not a homogeneous group. They waged wars of conquest with each other just like everyone else. There’s a temptation to divide humanity into white, black, misc Arabs, Indian, Asian, and misc indigenous and then conclude that in the Americas white and black are land thieves while misc indigenous are rightful owners. That’s a false oversimplification. Everyone is on land they took from someone. If a tribe steals land from another and then ten years later it’s colonized by Europeans it would be false to proclaim the most recent owners as the true owners for perpetuity. They stole it from others who stole it from others who stole it from others until you get so far back that we’re all descended from a common ancestor and none of this means anything. The people born to the land who make use of the land have claim to it. All of them. Not just the ones descended from an asshole with the pointiest stick and a fetish for flags. We can acknowledge the crimes against indigenous peoples without creating a spiritual true owners of land as if this is a Disney movie and the rocks speak to members of any tribe. What I think is key in there is this: We can acknowledge the crimes against indigenous peoples without creating a spiritual true owners of land That's the rub you blame on capitalists. Fair enough, but then there is no righteous concept of ownership under capitalism and it must be replaced. You, me, and Thomas Jefferson again find ourselves in agreement.
Unfortunately you and Tommy also agree it's not getting fixed, even if it means I (and my indigenous comrades) don't get to be considered fully human and enjoy the same God given rights you both struggled to secure for yourselves.
So here I find myself screwed yet again lol.
|
United States41989 Posts
On June 29 2019 01:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 01:09 IgnE wrote:On June 28 2019 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 23:21 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:58 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:24 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. If white people born in America are colonizers then so are African Americans. Neither chose the place of their birth. It's people like me who leave Europe that you need to watch out for. Stolen people on stolen land is the phrasing I would use. There is a large contingent of Black people in the US that have adopted colonial ideologies though, skin color (or even the treatment that comes with it) isn't an inoculation to colonial ideologies. If it is possible for land to have an owner then who but the people who were born on the land and make use of it could possibly be that owner? Migration is a part of human society. The children of the migrants are no less entitled than the children of the other migrants who came a bit earlier. Historical ownership of wealth is a bit more tricky because the crimes of the father enrich the son. But as for the land itself, we all own it, or none of us do. We all own it, or none of us do, would be acceptable. Issue is, colonizers insist they own it, and no one else. The capitalists insist that only those with a deed own it, and that deed is traced back to the original crime. I’d be fine with the “colonizers” saying that the land belongs to all colonizers because that’s all of us. The problem here is dead people seizing the means of production from the people who generated the wealth and then granting their kids an exclusive right to it. You’re as much a colonizer of the US as any other born here. Indigenous people didn't replace anyone, so no they are not colonizers. The descendants of stolen people are not colonizers in the sense that decedents of the thieves are simply because we both reside here. But it's true that any just outcome requires amiable resolution with indigenous peoples that could include Black people leaving too. Were we to stay despite the protest of indigenous peoples you're right that we'd be no different (with consideration for circumstances) than descendants of Europeans colonialists. We think we could come to terms though, around the mutual expulsion of colonialists. You're right imo that as a recent immigrant your reluctant embrace of colonialism is different (and potentially more hazardous) than either. On June 28 2019 23:42 Sent. wrote:On June 28 2019 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
In many places in Canada we make a Aknowledgement Statement to recognize that we are residing on aboriginal land. The loval governments worked with the Elders in Open Call events and Round Table Discussions and was vetted through the Reconciliation Commitee's.
There is a short and long form, here is an example of the short "I would like to acknowledge that we are on
Blackfoot land and would like to give recognition to the Blackfoot people past, present and future."
And the long "The City of acknowledges that we
are gathered on the lands of the Blackfoot
people of the Canadian Plains and pays respect
to the Blackfoot people past, present and
future while recognizing and respecting their
cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship to the
land. The City of is also home to
the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region III."
I bring this up as the name does not matter so much it is the actions you take, and more than that the intention behind the actions you take. It is not calling it America that causes any issues, it is how the people that live their act and their intentions that does. I understand the intention, but isn't such acknowledgement a bigger insult to the descendants of former inhabitants of the area than saying it used to be controlled by tribe X before it was taken by Europeans? You're basically telling them the land is still theirs without doing anything about it. If it's really theirs, why don't "you" give it back? In the US we're trained to see meaningless acknowledgements as significant progress. “indigenous people didn’t replace anyone” says who? if you are familiar at all with the well-documented ancient histories of Eurasian migrations and (re)settlements you should be skeptical that indigenous American cultures going back thousands of years were irenic Ur-peoples sprung from the earth. even a basic familiarity with Aztec peoples should disabuse you of that notion. personally i think the unwarranted extension and reflexive application of “colonizer” and other aspects of postcolonial theory is some of the most uncritical, unhelpful thinking to emerge in recent popular leftism. The critical weak link in leftist anti-American theories -- whether it be this colonialism nonsense or the argument that America is foundationally evil because it legalized slavery on its founding -- is their complete lack of historical perspective. Human history is a history of warfare and cultural/national genocide. Multiculturalism as a value has been around for roughly 2 minutes, and it is only valued in some segments of the Western world. The biggest irony is that these leftists fail to understand that the Western order that they seek to destroy is precisely what has enabled them to exist in the first place. It's all quite insane.
“I benefited from prior genocides and therefore I should not criticize ongoing and future genocides” is not a great argument. You can acknowledge that the Western world was built on exploitation and human misery without drawing the conclusion that those are the secret ingredient needed if we want it to survive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
