Why do I see so many people on the left saying we need to give the land back to the natives...

Why do I see so many people on the left saying we need to give the land back to the natives? How is this any different than ethnostates like the autright retards want? It’s ok because it’s more “woke”? Why, if they are supposedly against private property, should the land belong to anyone?

Other urls found in this thread:

greenantifascism.blogspot.ca/2016/07/a-left-without-enlightenment.html?m=1
thewalrus.ca/canadas-national-parks-are-colonial-crime-scenes/
ancientimes.blogspot.com/2011/02/the-gallic-wars-genocide-or-stepping.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

They aren't leftists.

The settler-colonialism of the Europeans was fucked up, but the solution isn't to kick out the white people. That is, exactly like you said, just ethno-nationalism.

it doesn't really belongs to anyone. land is just land, it's for who ever uses it.

Good essay on this subject:
greenantifascism.blogspot.ca/2016/07/a-left-without-enlightenment.html?m=1

...

...

They're mostly confused crypto-fascists.

In the ideal communist future, land would be returned to the natives by being returned to all working people.

I think in part though that this sort of thing is a product of the obscene conditions that US natives are subject to. It's appalling and I think that kind of reaction is natural. It's not right, but it's understandable.

Technically, when you really think about it, the natives of earth are the now extinct microscopic unicellular bacteria that inhabited the earth 4 billion years ago.

I dont see how any of what happened to the indians matter now.

see

WHITE MAN MUST LEAVE
WE HUNT BUFFALO
WE MAKE JEWLERY
WE WERE ALL ALONE
THEN WHITE MAN COME
NOW ALL THAT GONE
WE MUST DO THE GHOST DANCE AGAIN, TO RID OURSELVES OF THE WHITE MAN

IMHO demanding the Native Americans have more territory than measly reservations works for many reasons, several I'll list here

1) Employers tend not to employee them, this leads to universal alienation, and a large portion become NEETs. They suffer from alcoholism more not because its genetic, but because of the situation they're in. They have community in a reservation, but they don't have an income to rival the "normal" person. The only success they've found is in niche opportunities.

2) Their various cultures are on the brink of extinction in reality. Not in the alt right sense, in the actual sense. Their culture will actually die by the end of the century. Why should you care? Because the extinction of their culture is in large part due to 19th and 20th century Capitalism. I'm not talking small pox, I'm talking attempts at "civilizing" the natives, under the guise of getting rid of their long held, beyond centuries old traditions, because they didn't fit within capitalism. Sharing land doesn't really fit in Capitalism. So they were "re-educated". Or generationally "brain washed", basically. This has made them even more alienated because they live in a culture that does not fit with what they were born with. Combined with lack of employment opportunities outside of a reservation, this has lead to the ever sky rocketing suicide rate of Native Americans.

3) They tend to get shat on by the state more than any other race. This is especially true for Canada. Canada has treated its natives EVEN worse than the United States has. And the United States treats them horribly. Canada has refused to clean up toxic spills near reservations for decades, and their excuse is, no shit, "It just isn't worth it"

These are three, but there's a variety of issues that make Native Americans an important population not to be linked to white nationalists. It's just trying to improve the quality of life for a legitimately displaced people in their own time and their own space. White Nationalists have both, and they claim to be the Noble Savage. But in reality the two are a lesson in what actual cultural destruction looks like vs what feigned liberal outrage over demographic change looks like. White Nationalists have no culture compared to the Native Americans.

They were forced to be re educated everything they lived by for god knows how long, was incompatible to the culture of their occupiers. Who are know crying about occupying forces through feigned crocodile tears. Interesting how history works.

Come and take it, baboon people.

Someone give this man the intricate and complex economic system of Native Chile

In short, a "take" of what I'm saying could be simplified into Native Americans have had actual culture spanning far beyond the realm of what White Nationalists see as their own culture, and the former is on the brink of cultural extinction because their beliefs do not gel with Capitalism and never had. White Nationalist's ideals of culture are barbaric copies of the worries of actual Native Americans, when they aren't the ones at threat at all.

White Nationalists seek to destroy the very cultures that are at the brink because they falsely believe themselves to be more in the brink than anyone else. This is farthest from being true.

I don't see why Native Americans should be reserved to fairly tiny reservations that are the victims of state and corporate malpractice and should be given space to practice their own beliefs. If a situation isn't resolved North America will finally annihilate any and all leftovers of the people they brought down and brainwashed into accepting Capitalism.

In this scenario, I find doing nothing morally reprehensible, simply because if we get rid of or do not expand territories beyond reservations, these people's cultures will be treated as silly holidays to their descendants. They will become consumers. Or it will be an attempt. In all likelihood they would still face the same unemployment problems faced today, possibly worse.

Assimilating a culture that has never been compatible with Capitalism will only lead to the spike of alcoholism and suicide rates among Native Populations.

It's far more intricate than the banal accusation that "Natives = Alt Right". All their problems today can be traced to the fact their culture is not compatible with Capitalism. White Nationalist's """culture""" is fully compatible, and so, becomes far more dangerous in its ideas of apartheid. Natives don't want apartheid, they just don't want to be assimilated into a culture that doesn't share their beliefs, restricts them into reservations, and doesn't want them to spread outside their reservations.

Something should be done about these problems, and it shouldn't just be the accusation that they're similar to the alt right. They are not. The differences are far more material and historical.

For example, let's take a look at Native cultures that are

actually

On the brink of extinction, and compare them to what White Nationalists see as their culture. Comparing the combined White population of Canada and the United States, with these cultures who will die out quickly.

So let's start out with the Tillamook people. After Western disease wiped out swathes of them, their population was still at the dangerous, but communally acceptable number of 2,200 (give or take).

Today their population is 50.

The only 50 people left to try and salvage their culture is 50 individuals who have no chance of doing anything to help preserve centuries and centuries of culture. It spans the Pacific Northwest, both in Canada and Washington State, and Oregon.

A tribe spanning two different countries, and two different states in that culture only has 50 remaining people.

Let's look at for example, the persecuted White Nationalists demographics. Canada has a European population of 76.7%. This gives them a number of around 25,111,695 of Canada's total population of 35,151,728. And as for Oregon and Washington State, the numbers are similar.

So you're basically saying that the 50 people left of a long standing tribe are similar to the people who represent most of their nations crying about their own ethno-state. That's preposterous.

But the numbers do get better. By better I'm being sarcastic

So while white nationalists claim their entire "culture" is threatened, and that culture should be preserved, they still refuse to care (or know about) about a culture of a remnant 50 individuals compared to their millions and cultural dominance. That has always extended to the Native Populations of the Americas.

This isn't the only case, in the same region lived a people known as the Chimakum. Their fate was not by direct hand of the Europeans, but other tribes felt the pressure of the extinction of their cultures and their subsequent re-education into capitalism that went against everything they ever believed.

This, combined with similarly but not as significant Canadian interference, virtually left them extinct by 1902. Their have been rumors of surviving members adopted into other tribes who agreed with their message, but at the end, cultural dominance of the Canadian Government eventually lead tribes peaceful before, to turn on each other. Their language, the Chemakum, is also hardly documented. Even for 1902.

This is what actual cultural destruction looks like.

It's a vicious cycle.

FUGG
Well written comrade, that's a strong argument. Not that I'm ethnonationalist in any way, but that is a strong argument against white ethnonationalism.

Let's just continue comparing demographics of what white nationalists "think" is their going extinct, compared to people actually going extinct because largely what they believe is incompatible with the Capitalist mode of production.

The Timbisha people live in the Death Valley region of California. The US federal government does not send them water, and it is common that many die of malnutrition and dehydration due to the extreme heat of the area. Which is made even better, by the fact that sense their dying culture lived within the bounds of Death Valley, in 1933 when it was declared a National Park in 1933.

This prompted outrage by the tribe because it essentially evicted them from their generational home. They hid, literally homeless in small communities, hoping not to be evicted to either civilization or another reservation that was completely culturally different than their own.

It wasn't until 1982 that a reservation was granted to them in the area

But by that time it was far too late, people were evicted, and moved to white communities or completely different reservations, the US Government believing it was all the same in the time between 1938 and 1982. Or the more likely situation, they didn't give a shit. They only started to give a shit is when they started organizing not to be evicted and turned homeless from lands that they lived in for countless generations.

Currently the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe consists of around 300 members. At one point they before 1938 they had a population of around 3,154. Today their population is 300.

White Nationalists are losing no culture, they are simply crying over demographic change. Actual cultural extinction happens under our noses and we all could give a rat's ass its happening, through lack of education on the problem to just plain bigotry on their part.

And regardless, the Timbisha reservation, like all, is suffering from neglect and poverty.

Similarly, at one point in the Mojave Desert there were an expansive people named the Kawaiisu, ranging from that point to Nevada and Southern California. Their population was around 31,820. Due to being shipped to other reservations, or death by neglect, before they were established today in a Reservation; their population is now 60.

Out of 31,820 individuals, it is now 60 individuals.

This is what cultural destruction looks like, and the pompous white nationalists who have a majority population in the nations they claim are under attack couldn't be even assed to defend these dying cultures; despite their modus operandi to protect dying culture.

If they really gave a shit about the vanishing of culture, they would focus less on themselves, gorging on the outrage they selfishly demand of others.

Seems fair…

It isn’t. Ethnic nationalism from below is still ethnic nationalism, and is just as reactionary.

Isn't that self inflicted by choosing to live on an isolated reservation though? How is this any different than coal miners demanding coal be subsidized because they don't want to move out of coaltown? There are plenty of self forming ethnic communities in the US that don't demand specialized areas of land exclusive to them based on their ethnicity.

Seems like an alt-right idea to me. They don't have inherent "culture", they are born into an environment that they adapt to. Again, the reservations are self imposing a split between them and the rest of society. They only feel alienated form mainstream society because, they alienate themselves. Like above, plenty of immigrants are able to come to the US even late in life and adapt. native americans are not entitled to culture, language, or anything else because of spooky heritage shit. I also don't care about a culture disappearing as if it was some sort of singular entity. This is just like Holla Forums bitching about muh cultural marxism. Culture changes with the times and they're going to have to roll with it like everyone else.

Well when you define being treated bad as not having their asses kissed constantly then I guess so. This is like some rich born porky complaining that the rap community won't accept him when he sings about coming from the ghetto. Native americans where given land that they could do anything they want with, and they formed shitholes and now complain its everyone else's fault. Last I checked no other ethnic group in the US is privileged to have land that is exempt from federal law.

But this is literally an alt-right talking point. Half of Varg's videos are about exactly this. There seems to be a massive blindspot on the left that people like you suffer from. All of this rhetoric sounds like some sort of shit I'd read on stormfront about an italian dude wanting muslims to fuck off, just with softer rhetoric.

You're not even trying.

I'm not sure about this; you've described how how they've been shat on, but not how granting them more land will alleviate their position. Also, given the destruction of their culture, I'm not sure that a state based on that culture would work well.

>greenantifascism.blogspot.ca/2016/07/a-left-without-enlightenment.html?m=1
HOly shit, this is ideology vs ideology

thewalrus.ca/canadas-national-parks-are-colonial-crime-scenes/

Giving land back still winds up with land in the capitalist system, just with a band council administering it instead of a government or a white landlord. There's still a porky and porky is going to be porky regardless of his heritage

how? if you buy into their woldview and logic they'll simply cite the fate of the amerindians as a cautionary tale of what happens to a culture/people/whatever that isn't stronger than its neighbours and doesn't self-consciously defend itself from outside groups


their MO is to defend a very specific 'dying' culture defined by a very specific way, they don't actually care about 'protecting culture' in general, especially since their idea of culture is fetishisation of narrow petty-bourgeois society at best and consumerist at worst.


you aren't fooling anyone


this
cultures are in a constant flux, trying to preserve the totality of a culture, however you delineate one, as 'pure', is impossible as the culture itself changes along with material conditions and the very act of preserving 'pure culture' like an amateur biologist collecting butterflies changes the nature of the culture itself.

I forgot how moronic some of you fuckers act when it comes to natives wanting self governance.

I'm not arguing in favour of expanding reservations, but it's public record that reserves were generally put on substandard land and people who lived there had fewer rights under law. Up here in Canada natives on the reservation had to apply for permission to leave it for any reason. Kind of hard to compete and trade or seek redress in court when you have an internal border keeping you from leaving your small patch of dirt at will.

Also a lot of resrrves are in remote locations. Canadian reserves that were located close to big population centres generally fared much better than ones stuck up in Northern Ontario or Manitoba. IIRC the Mohawks outside of Montreal used to work as ironworks in NYC before switching to cigarettes and gambling

You are forgetting that you're on a board for leftists. Land ownership via band council is still land OWNERSHIP and will inevitably result in the oppression of those that live on the land by those who administrate it.

We want to erase the stain of colonialism by giving land back to the people, which includes all aboriginal people. Anything less is really just managerial liberalism.

There is no current solution to the decimation of Native cultures in Capitalism than to give them more rights than they currently have. I'm sorry but by the time you have your utopia, it'll already be too late.

What rights do they not have?

I'm the user who made the posts about Native Americans and

wrong

wrong

WRONG

I never said the colonizing force was "more powerful". In fact in all counts they really weren't. So one might ask, why did they all die out? An entire two continents worth of culture just become reservations of measly 50-200 people?

Short Answer: Smallpox

Long Answer: There were no animals for the Native Americans to domesticate, all of them could not be domesticated. Now, this by itself is actually a gigantic deal. They grew and tended crops well, just as well, if not actually better than Europeans. But the local fauna of North and South America were fauna not meant to be domesticated. For fucks sakes it took us decades just to domesticate a few Buffalo in the present day.

But why does that matter? It matters because while many civilizations in South America domesticated wild dogs, and Llamas, they aren't exactly food animals. North America had animals that were either too fast, too deadly, or both. Buffalo was off the table, wolves were off the table, deer were simply too fast. They might have had birds, but that could barely cut it.

Now let's look at the Old World. They simply had the best "luck" (luck is in quotes because it really wasn't as lucky as it sounds). It had nothing to do with intelligence, it had everything to do with the ability to get to that point. There would be no civilization without the mass domestication of animals easily domesticated. Swine, Cattle, Horses, Fowl, Geese, Swans, the whole schabang. But that also was the downfall for civilization for a long time. Because you see, when you breed animals in unhealthy, filthy conditions, with no antibiotics, what do you get?

Plague. You get plague. Plague becomes easier in this environment, and once you have a city built up? It becomes a graveyard. TB came from Cattle, for example, a disease that's regarded as one of the deadliest that man kind has ever faced, and as people became more uncleanly, and disease carrying animals, both feral and domestic (rats), you get diseases that can range from the bacterial to the fungal to the viral.

And eventually, the population grows someone immune to it (somewhat). But they are still carriers.

And this is simply what happened. It wasn't that they had superior fighting force, history has shown were it not for the shred in numbers, or plague in question, Natives united would have mopped the floor with the colonizing forces. They were not superior in any way but the foundation of their own society over centuries and centuries and centuries.

Gunpowder could only withstand so much, a virus however, is the ultimate weapon. And Europe just happened to be in a situation where viruses were plenty.

It's the same reason why there wasn't an American Native plague, they simply were founded from a different environment. I don't think "easier to infect by plague" is a strong foundation for society, in many respects the Natives lived without plague for the direct opposite reason Westerners did not.

What I'm saying is that I'm not saying their fighting force was inferior, what I'm saying is that how Capitalism (after the fact of this apocalyptic series of accidental epidemics in the mid 19th century to now) is the problem.

Telling a decimated people their traditions and lands were savage and they needed to be reeducated and displaced, is the problem. Along with everything else I said. It isn't about the Colonial Past, it's about the Capitalist past.

Problems with employment outside of a reservation, problems assimilating with American culture even if there was mass attempts at "reeducation from their savagery into capitalism" despite the two not gelling at all. Both continents, but PARTICULARLY, the United States and Canada are guilty of this. You can't just attempt to brainwash and relocate people to a completely different part of the map.

Canada especially is heinous for its absolute neglect of its Native Tribes, almost disdainful. In historically recent Canada they STILL did this "reeducation" nonsense, with the added spin of trying to fucking force them to believe Christianity with mandatory Bible classes.

All of these things necessarily aren't current besides extreme neglect, it's the effects of the past having bearing on the present conditions.

Thanks for posting, that was highly informative. I have a question though, why didn't Europeans succumb to any North American diseases? Surely there must have been some that existed from allopatric speciation?

I believe I addressed this? It's because Native Americans had no animals to domesticate, so the environment for a situation like a plague just didn't exist. There was nothing similar to the mass domestication that occurred that was a breeding ground for all sorts of pathogen to breed between livestock to man. With the establishment of cities, plagues, the problems agriculture faced became a thousand fold. Usually in the past, a farming community would die out because, whatever pathogen, wiped them out before it could spread. Urban living however, pathogens had an unlimited supply of people. These problems didn't end until the early 20th century. So medicine is all fairly recent.

tl;dr mass domestication causes pathogen, pathogens mutate, cities are built from the resources of agriculture; plague occurs. But Native Americans had no animals to domesticate, so they simply did not have plagues as potent as small pox.

So what rights that they don't already have do they need to be granted?

I mentioned in one of my post local and state governments in the US and Canada (particularly Canada) treat their reservations with extreme neglect. If you want a recent problem, the Canadian government has actually failed to clean toxic spills into the environment of reservations for decades, leading to birth defects, the death of the fish they usually caught, etc.

What don't they have? They don't have a government that promises their health and safety or their financial future.

I mean that would be a good argument except the US doesnt guarantee health and safety anywhere just look at Flint,Mi or the many small towns that you can set the tap water on fire.

It's harder to do deal with these problems when your community is only 50-200 people. It's easier to deal with when an entire city is faced with it. Combined with the problems I've listed before.

You have to be really stretching it to say Native Americans today just face the same problems as anyone else. I'm not exactly saying it's worse, but it is different. Different enough that their should be measures made to ensure their safety, but I doubt that's going to happen in either Canada or the United States.

Its not going to happen anywhere in the world precisely be capitalism especially late stage capitalism does not facilitate changes like that without a profit motive and there is no easily definable profit motive for shortsighted capitalists

this is what anprims actually want, they want to go back to the good ol bacteria days

nah but ethno-nationalism is ok when bad guys exist, see israel

Are you seriously disputing the idea of Native claims to reparations. You don't have to take someone's land, you just have to buy land and give it to Natives. This isn't rocket science. Also, natives aren't against private property, that's just a colonial myth. Honestly, the amount of /pol racism infesting this board as of late is remarkable.

That depends on the tribe you're talking about, many in British Colombia had an idea of property that was not at all similar to that of the European idea of it.

Aren't many of those tribes disputing their treaties because the government broke their promises?

How do you take land? How do you give land to someone? Do you pick it up and carry it somewhere else, or do you just get the right to kill people over it?

Natives are glorified kulaks who need more despooking than anyone.

That's the white race tbh

Whites are so good at projecting, they'll never be despooked.

...

Fuck Off

Well, Russel Means linked their problems to the tribal governments which were created in the image of the United States with the goal of destabilizing native society and organizing power. So, all this complaining about idpol is really moot. Your idea that their way of life is the same as yours, that they should give up their language and culture and adopt yours is colonialist. Their right to the land isn't any less than yours. The goal of reparations isn't that the government fixes every little problem, it's that the government remedies the harms inflicted to the group by restoring a significant amount of the resources taken from them.

Idpol doesn't mean what you think it means. At this point there are so few natives that looking at their historical possessions, buying land to return to them, paying them through, and giving them autonomy to organize themselves on their own terms isn't unreasonable or some terrible idpol spook.

Instead of trying to erase their justice claim, you should be working with them to achieve common goals. When you decide that you're only willing to work with people who adopt your views, then you can't build a coalition of people around common goals. If your idea that idpol is bad prevents you from working with people to get clean water, then you're retarded. They're already there, trying to keep their water clean, you should stfu and join in if you actually think the goals are important, instead of sitting on the sidelines and wildly gesticulating about how they should only speak English.

You literally genocided them, you yankee cunt.
Stop acting like a sassenach wanker.

not him, but i wanna answer
their diseases were nowhere near as potent or deadly as european diseases. remember europe almost went extinct during the middle ages with the plague killing off 70% of the continent. Sadly, the native americans were wiped out due to the diseases, largely in part of european policies.

It's not against private property it redefines private property as what you can use yourself. Decolonization is a type of anti-colonialism which is a type of anti-imperialism. It's about freeing people from oppression and giving them self determination. It's not an ethno-state because for example before he US gov intervened to be a part of a native tribe you didnt have to fit any specific bloodline you just had to be allowed in.

yall niggas ugly

I never said they should, there's no reason why they can't speak their own language and have their own culture with the rest of everybody. Muslims and hispanics have no problem retaining their culture but remaining part of the general population.

But to a degree you need to adapt to the place you live, it's not colonial its just practical.

I never claimed it was, but the exact opposite: that they want to keep me off land they see as theirs because of heritage. You keep dodging the question of this entire thread: why do you keep insisting that they are entitled to this land. If you say "because they're native americans" then it's fucking idpol. You can't say that I don't have a right to the land but they do because heritage, because then that's alt-right logic.

See above, this is right wing shit.

It is if the entire basis is heritage. The land can't be returned to them because its not theirs, if their land isn't any less theirs than mine then do I not equally own it? Why do you want to force the entire country to give up land to a specific group of people?

Why would I want to work with people who's entire identity is the antithesis to mine? I don't think land should be doled out based on genetics.

When did I say I didn't want water cleaned up? I never claimed I don't want to help others, you're putting words in my mouth.

I never said such things, stop strawmanning and try to actually answer questions posed to you.

wanna correct and say they werent wiped out due to european policies, but european policies helped wipe them out

They think the Mohawks, Iriquiois Indians never fought over anything. Before the white man came, they walked around the country sharing candy with each other and sucking each other's dicks. Same thing in Africa. The merciless stress of Judeo-Capitalism created a dementia longing for a simpler time. They should be demanding the country be given back to white Christians from the 1950s whose land was taken by hedonists in the 60s and 70s instead of savages from hundreds of years ago.

sp00ky

White Burgers and Britbongs never want to take responsibility.

The USA is a society with a long history of racism and most Americans have trouble getting past this part of their ideology, especially the left.
Let's give the land to the natives, okay, then what ? Nothing would happen. Capitalism would remain but with more tanned people instead. Great.

should contemporary italians take responsibility for rome's exterminations of celts and other "barbarian" peoples?

Black Americans never take responsibility for their ancestral tribal wars

Nobody is holding modern Iroquois responsible for what's left of the Huron

Celts don't still face systematic disadvantages as a result of Rome's conquest, you massive brianlet.

See>>2212077

so now the issue is contemporary disadvantage? mentions only genocide

It was a piss-take, I was only trying to make a point, implying that yakees have a history of oppressing the indigenous people and that they ought to start treating them better.

Ah so we need only wait for the American Empire to fall, and suddenly all this mystical advantage in life will disappear and all the responsibility you project on to them will fade away

Holy fuck, what's going on, is this Holla Forums?
Fuck off back to 4chan.

says the faggot that holds us to some sort of original sin

there is no inherited responsibility by skin you reactionary fuck

That wasn't me

What exterminations? There were no exterminations. Those people were incorporated into roman culture although they didn't have the same rights as romans form Italy.

No one even claimed that, stop being such an autistic fucking retard and read what was written.

romanisation was a form of culture extermination

I remember being introduced to my 3rd grade class as a native and then my teacher went on some 20 minute rant about land. Kids treated me like a broken person for weeks, instead of just another classmate.
As far as I'm concerned European-Americans and Natives are the same ethnic group by now. We speak the same languages and have the same general beliefs and nobody would guess I was a native if they just heard my southern drawl.
History is fucked up. There are still reservation natives feeling the ripples from it. But there is a huge and still growing population of "urban" natives.

t. brown person who doesnt speak for all brown people but wants to bite his tongue off every time land comes up

Shameful.

indeed, but that's how these white nationalists and whatnot would see it
It's a nice writeup of the history and background of native malaise, but you aren't really engaging with the material.
and herein lies the larger picture. It wasn't just the ravages of disease that allowed for a domination of the amerindians, but also the organisation of the Europeans and the systematic expansion of their power.


post-colonials out, this is an enlightenment universalist leftist board
essentialism, of white or brown or whatever kind has no place here


this is how ethno-nationalism works in practice too, hell even in hitlerland you just had to be one of the 'good jews'.

kill whitey tbqh

Not even an egoist but if you believe this you are a reactionary who thinks people should live in zoos

'self-determination' is just the woke version of the collective will of the nation. much of decolonialist discourse relies on the existence of this mystical unitary racial will that trascends the individual and renders void the original marxist ideal of free association. decolonial discourse ironically owes a lot to the ideas of western philosophers like Martin Heidegger. The problem with talking about reparations is that such measures are still enmeshed within the capitalist logic of debt and 'justice'

you are ultimately more concerned with the loss of 'authenticity' and 'authentic culture' than with living standards or the creation of a new society. The restoration of 'authentic' culture is impossible by this point. People ignore the massive cultural change undergone by society over the last 70 years or so, a lot of it has to do with technology, capitalism and mass media. I doubt modern 'white culture' has anything to do with the culture of early 20th century america or even 50s suburbia. The alt right is a thoroughly modern aberration, borne out of the deracinated conditions of late capitalism.

What about the Gallic Wars? It illustrates the same point. The sins of yesterday cannot cast a shadow on today, because the sun has set.

No, my point is one of capitalism and alienation, not wholly culture. Though I do think they have a stronger argument for why their unique cultures should be perserved, Native Americans aren't a hive mind of the same cultural beliefs. Different tribes, different beliefs, different culture, etc. And these cultures are on the brink. Some even have less than 50 people.

So I really just do not see why improving their living conditions is a gigantic deal given the circumstances they're in.

But answers like these aren't going to happen within the next ten years, I mean if I was a betting man I would say no. Of course I agree with you none of this shit should be involved. But my point is by the time it isn't involved at all, would many exist at all? That's the problem. What we've done to the Native Americans trying to assimilate them into Capitalism and Christianity in the later half of the 19th century, well into the 20th century, has resulted in nothing more than another similarly insidious form of ethnic cleansing.

slow down there rafiq, alcoholism has a huge genetic component

It does, however I disagree that in this case its genetic because alcohol consumption only existed in the pre-colonial South Western United States. For example, the Papago, Piman, Apache and Maricopa all used the saguaro cactus of the South Western US to produce a kind of fermented drink. But it was only these South Western cultures that did this. Now, to be fair this is all IIRC

So, unless I am a complete dumbass and missing something, I think the alcoholism has more to do with the fact they're terminally unemployed outside of their reservations they were given and suffer depression more than anyone else, than genetics.

There can be other explanations for alcoholism other than genetics.

I'm trying to find a convincing study about variations in alcohol dehydrogenase I read a while back, but everything I'm finding so far seems to indicate a lack of evidence for a genetic component to American Indian alcohol dependency.

Any time you use past wrongs as a justification for future wrongs, you promote ideology that supports an endless cycle of wrongs. People mix up violence for defense with violence for revenge and you get this kind of shit.

You continue to classify this as idpol, but you never state why idpol is wrong. I reject the notion both that idpol is wrong and that recognition of historical differences is wrong(idpol). Also, I reject your notion that this somehow a form of racism against you. Their history is not about you. Your equality to them cannot be based in the idea that recognition of a group of people as a different entity is somehow a slight to your equality. For example: women need access to healthcare that men won't ever need, and they should get it because they need it, not be denied it based on the idea that it creates inequality against men.

I don't think you got my post. You both have a right to own land, but your right comes from citizenship and theirs comes from a claim to justice and the amelioration of historical theft. So why did Japanese-Americans get reparations due to WWII internment camps, because it was a harm done specifically to them historically. I don't understand why you can't wrap your head around this. It's not because we like them more and we're setting some arbitrary methodology, it's because of historical abuse.

You make it seem like responding to modern conditions created by historical events is wrong in some way because it recognizes group differences and fragments society, but how can you ever heal a divide between people without acknowledging them? And if acknowledging their existence creates a divide, then you've set up a scenario in which you can't respond to them in a meaningful way and instead you must erase them by saying they're like you. You deny history when you absolve society of its responsibility to remedy difference by refusing to see differences. It's weird that forcing people into a society of which they are in historical opposition is your way of making them equal. If this is true, then what you really want is to colonize them by neutralizing their differences. What I'm saying is that we have to recognize differences and make concession on a case-by-case basis. This is normal in the justice system, and giving them their own autonomous zone (country) wouldn't infringe on your rights, it would just acknowledge their rights as different based on an historical framework. I mean, French laws don't govern Germany, because it's not the French's right to rule the Germans. Seeing this on a smaller scale and applying it isn't wrong or difficult to understand.

Also your argument works on poor people too:

Nobody on the board would believe this. I think you're adopted this framework (idpol) by which you spook away other people's politics by denying them their right to have politics that you don't like. And you only apply it along racial lines in an act of color blindness, which in practice absolves society from addressing grievances instead of answering them. So even though society has treated a specific group differently, now we can't acknowledge those differences without applying uneven treatment to remedy them, and uneven treatment is categorically wrong because we've decided this new framework treats everyone the same. Under this framework, if you broke someone's arms and they need medical assistance, when you enact these rules we can't apply uneven treatment to fix them, because now we're treating everyone equally and not everyone needs bone-fixing medicine, so they just get the standard physical. This doesn't work, so anti-idpol must be a spook, because it creates this idpol framework which it opposes for the sake of upholding the status quo.

What the actual fuck is up with that pic. What the fuck does “unsettling” even mean. Where even am I supposed to go If I’m not even fully from one place?

Julius Cease was a fucking warcriminal. ancientimes.blogspot.com/2011/02/the-gallic-wars-genocide-or-stepping.html

You literally have to go back to Europe. It's arguing for a native ethnostate spanning the Americas

idpol…not even once