So this is a topic being talked about more in the wake of Palestine, but even the recent protest in LA. People wonder why they waved Mexican flags because that land used to be Mexico and they want to return to it.
I think we will see this turn into a liberation struggle.
BIPOC resistance has been growing a ton in America with Native Americans expressing more interest in armed struggle to drive settlers from their land. Remember white people even being in America is against the UN charter and native Americans have the right to demand their land back
Even in Europe the Sami people are the rightful indigenous people of Europe and they to are struggling with the governments of Germany,Norway and Sweden over things like infrastructure intruding on their grazing land. So what do you support in terms of tactics and targets ? I will list some groups and their tactics and ask what you support.
This raises an honest and difficult question: what forms of resistance are morally or strategically supportable in these struggles? Different movements have taken different paths:
ANC (South Africa) Emphasized avoiding civilian harm, focused on sabotage of state infrastructure.
FLN (Algeria) Primarily attacked colonial structures and security forces, but some attacks affected civilians.
ZANU/ZAPU (Zimbabwe) More indiscriminate, targeting white settlers broadly.
Where do you personally draw the line when it comes to resistance in a settler colonial state like the U.S.? What tactics do you believe are justified, and against what kinds of targets symbolic, institutional, or broader?”
A reverse Nazi is still a Nazi.
You want to talk about freedom and autonomy? You want to talk about resistance, breaking chains, freeing people from exploitation? You want to talk about the West and the oppression of uncontrolled capitalism? I’m all for that.
You want to bring race into it, talk about the true owners of the land and the invaders? That sounds a lot like blood and soil to me.
People live where they live. Trying to build an ethno-state is always going to eventually lead to genocide. And you’re really dancing around that idea hard, just like the far right did before they went full mask off… You’re not saying it, just asking questions, right?
Don’t frame this by race. If you can’t frame this in the context of human dignity, you’re just pushing another flavor of sparkling fascism
yikes first off white genocide is a myth
second indigenous people fighting for their land back is not white genocide.
I never said white genocide. That’s the problem here - you’re talking just like a fascist, but from a position of the oppressed. Which is to say, you’re talking just like a fascist
You’re talking about taking the land (soil) back for the indigenous people (blood). You’re not talking about benefiting people. You’re not talking about fixing problems and making life better.
Just taking. Take our county back. Take our land back. Drive out the invaders. Sound familiar?
The thought “white genocide” genuinely never crossed my mind in all of this. Because I’m not a fascist. I just know when you combine racial lines and fascism, you’re talking ethno-state, which always means genocide. In this case, who gets genocided? Everyone but the in-group, starting with the most disadvantaged and physically identifiable and working inwards from there.
Instead I think of just people, all living in an oppressive system. I don’t care that some are less oppressed, I don’t care about what was taken from people generations ago or who “deserves” the land. I care about reducing the oppression. Human dignity.
Not what we can take, what we can give and what must be taken to give that to the people. All the people.
You’re framing this just like the Nazis do, it doesn’t matter if you flip the “in group” to be a minority or more oppressed group. You’re still using the same framework, which there is a descriptive term for: Fascism
If they started genociding white people it would be though. History is not a zero sum game where it’s OK for the natives to do to white people what they did to the natives. You can’t exactly repatriate people that were born and raised somewhere to a country / continent that they have no ties to besides distant ancestors. I’m not saying land back is inherently genocidal but what actually is a way to go about it that doesn’t involve an ethnic cleansing?
In my home province a Tribe recently codified their own constitution. The surrounding tribes have already contested their claim to some of the lands the Tribe in question has claimed as their own.
I think the big question before we can talk about where we draw the line for “resistance” is how far back in history are we going to go to declare the “rightful” owners of land, and who gets to decide where the borders are after?
Maybe it is time our species finally acted as a whole instead of continuing to pretend we all aren’t the exact same, and work to make the lands we all share today habitable for everyone.
Exactly. Isn’t this essentially the Israeli Palestinian conflict because the Jews once owned the land? Then the Arabs settled for a few hundred years, then the Jews come back and are like “Mine” and now the Palestinians want it back again? Something like that. Was probably owned by some canaanite tribes before either of them as well.
The evidence we have suggests that Ancient Israelite culture evolved from Ancient Canaanite civilization. The earliest documentation of Israel as a people was dated around 1208 BCE in Egypt. So if we were rolling it back to see who is first, evidence suggests we give it to anyone with direct link to the ancient Canaanites regardless of their religious affiliation which includes modern day Israelis and Palestinians.
I do agree this is a more complicated question then many think
For example I don’t see any indigenous rights activist advocating for land back in turkey and for the turks to give it back to the Greeks
You don’t see anyone advocating arabs give Egypt back to the copts.
I personally don’t see it as a very complicated question. Historical wrongs exist for all people, so we either need to right every single one and upend everything around us now or we need to start burying hatchets and working together on the land we share now while reconciling those past wrongs.
Why would they give it back to the Greeks? To my knowledge, the Greeks took the land they controlled in modern day Turkey from Persia under Alexander the Great.
But that does support the point: If we were to “give the land back” in Turkey, who gets it? We have recorded history in the area, but what about the time before recorded history considering we only have about 6,000 years to go on Globally and our species has been around for about 300,000 years? Even if we put that aside, who’s recorded history do we go on? Does that mean those with oral histories get the shaft? If we find any point where the indigenous group conquered and killed another for the land, is their claim void?
I think this idea is only complicated when we take the “land back” route instead of the “working together to make things better” route.
I don’t draw any line when the whole world is either complicit or silence against a bit less than 6 decades occupation. I can’t tell people who got all their familiy member blown up what do to and what they should feel about it
what about people who lived through 200 years of occupation ?
Same
