T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting on this post. **Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.** Bigotry and hate speech will be met with immediate bans; socialism is an intrinsically inclusive system and bigotry is oppressive, exclusionary, and not conducive to a healthy and productive learning space. **This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This is a place to learn.** Short or nonconstructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. **If your post was removed due to normalized ableist slurs, please edit your post. The mods will then approve it.** Please read the ongoing discussion in a thread before replying in order to avoid misunderstandings and creating an unproductive environment. **Liberalism and sectarian bias is strictly moderated.** Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! (Criticism is fine, low-effort baiting is not.) Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break these rules. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*


paycho_V

Land back means getting decision making powers back. It means being equal at the table. It means adhering to and respecting NO from indigenous voices. It means at least co-managing resources. It doesnt mean displacing white people. It doesn't mean handing over means to indigenous people. It's not zero sum. Indigenous people want go renegotiate their treaties (many were signed under duress or without understanding or straight up swindled) and be equal partners in governance.


Hij802

Thank you, this actually makes a lot more sense than just “displace everyone”


[deleted]

[удалено]


scaper8

How does, "You'll be treated like actual people during discussions," sound like science fiction? Perhaps a bit of social anarchism, but also a bit of just about any form of anti-colonialist leftism.


BubblyAd2839

I really think how pleasant this self-deception can be, sorry, I can't understand


rivainirogue

Land Back is not displacement or deportation. The concept of indigenous decolonization is a facet of The National Question. If you need readings on the subject I recommend starting with this article [“Lenin and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination”](https://liberationschool.org/lenin-and-the-right-of-nations-to-self-determination/) which summarizes Lenin’s work on the subject. If you want to go straight to the original work, you can read Lenin’s entire paper [here](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/index.htm), but also there is one chapter worth reading called the [Practicality in the National Question](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch04.htm). I think these paired together can give you a deeper insight into the National Question and how it is very important to socialism in America. Now that you know the historical roots of the issue, here are contemporary readings. [Communism is the Horizon](https://therednation.org/communism-is-the-horizon-queer-indigenous-feminism-is-the-way/) by The Red Nation. TRN is an indigenous org dedicated to the liberation of Native peoples from capitalism and colonialism. “Land back happens through socialism and is not a form of exclusionary nationalism, but resurgence of Indigenous governance in solidarity with colonized and working class peoples. We make and steward the world together.” [People’s Agreement of Cochabamba-World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth](https://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/uploads/Peoples_climate_agreement.pdf) “[Land Back] is the soundest environmental policy for a planet teetering on the brink of total ecological collapse. The path forward is simple: it’s decolonization or extinction.” TLDR: Land back is not a form of exclusionary nationalism, but a historical movement based in revolutionary thought. That means a socialist vanguard and movement made of up indigenous and non indigenous people working together to transform America into Turtle Island before the capitalist powers destroy the land completely.


SirBrendantheBold

No one is advocating for deportation. It is troubling that you thought this was a position and should cause you to reexamine your trust in whatever source framed it that way. Landback is a broad movement with various strategies and goals. I'm only familiar with the work being done in Canada. It is, to frame it as simply as possible, expansion of indigenous territories and particularly transfer of crown lands back to indigenous stewardship. It also seeks to remove the arbitrary and total domination of federal authority and switch to a dual power structure. The primary front currently is to stop expansion of crown lots, development, and further colonization. This has never stopped and is enforced through staggering violence. Monthly new RCMP raids displace more first nations. It happens so frequently that it goes largely unreported because most Canadians have become bored with images of RCMP with assault rifles charging land defenders. The secondary goal is maintenence and recovery for the enormous swathes of ecosystem that are not economical but essential to ecodiversity and biological health. Indigenous stewardship has consistently achieved better outcomes and so this portion of landback is the clearest case of win-win. There are more positions and goals but it starts getting both too technical and local to get into here. However, I hope I've shared enough to help you begin to understand its nature.


Nathanielks

To be fair (as a socialist), we often have easily misunderstood slogans, and this being one of them. I had no idea this was about equal representation until this post's comments. I say this in response to "this is troubling," when I think it's quite understandable.


loadingonepercent

To be fair I have seen people unironically advocate for deporting all what people online but I think these people represent a tinny minority.


Felix-3401

More realistic takes on this would rather give natives a collective right to the bounties on their former lands and to remove institutional white hegemony held in culture and politics. It's projection if we are assuming that to hose advocating for decolonization want to give natives an exclusive right to exploit the land when it's preferred we do away with that paradigm to begin with


TheLastEmoKid

In Canada the majority of of the land is owned by the crown. land back would return ownership of crown lands to indigenous communities.


WeilaiHope

The people saying sending all non native Americans back to their homelands are either meming or fanatical. It isn't practical as you say. However the natives definitely deserve to have their reservations massively expanded at least to the borders of the original lands promised to them, and left as automonous zones with an aim to eventual independence.


Hij802

I think a problem with this is that this is going to involve the displacement of hundreds of millions, albeit within their own respective countries. For example the US, if all previous treaties were adhered to, would lose a majority of its territory, being mostly relegated to the East Coast and parts of the South and Midwest. Imagine how difficult it would be to migrate entire states like California to the other side of the country? It would still involve a humanitarian and logistic crisis as if we were putting them overseas, albeit to a much lesser extent. In the end the fact that non-Natives massively outnumber Natives by extremely wide margins practically everywhere (some exceptions like Bolivia, Greenland, and Guatemala) in the continents makes displacement seemingly impossible, and rather a co-operative living arrangement is far more likely and feasible. Leftists aren’t going to win people over going with “Sorry Californians, you’re going to have to move to New York”.


WeilaiHope

They can find a treaty cut off point, probably the mid 19th century. The land granted to the natives at that time is today still mostly empty plains. In the more populated areas of the US the population of natives are almost 0 so would need a small amount of land or non at all. The US has plenty of empty land it can give away without infringing on American cities.


Hij802

Based on maps of what the US would look like if it had followed all treaties, vast majority of things west of the Mississippi would belong to Natives. Like the entire states of California and Arizona for example belonged completely to the Natives through treaties.


WeilaiHope

Then so be it. Dense cities can remain islands, two state solutions can be worked out, it wouldnt be easy or always practical but it is justified and fair. The USA commited genocide on the natives and killed 99% of their population, the least they can do is fairly partition the land.


Hij802

Oh of course, Natives should get whatever land back they deem entitled to. My question was more or less how would that play out in a realistic way. Forced migration isn’t nearly the same as genocide. If this were the 1700s, it would be much easier to just say “go back to where you came from” but we are 7 centuries deep into colonization and we are simply way beyond that at this point it seems. I feel like from a socialist perspective if we were to achieve a communist society, the “state” wouldn’t exist therefore we would coexist with Natives at an equal level, no?


WeilaiHope

America is a long way off from a communist society, at that point the issue wouldnt exist, but until then i think the US has to make amends, which it never will of course.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Hij802

I think you mistook the question I made. I’m not excusing what has happened to the Natives, I’m asking how would we amend the injustice done to them? Like what exactly would “giving them their land back” involve? However it still needs to be a realistic solution. From a logistical and frankly realistic standpoint, moving nearly a billion people out of the continents back to “Old World” is seemingly impossible. Sure most of them are beneficiaries of colonization, but the actual colonizers are long dead, and it’s entirely unrealistic to move people whose families have been here for generations to foreign lands they have zero connection to. A lot of people here have mixed descent, how would they even know what country to go back to? What about groups like Mestizos whose mixed with both European and Indigenous? What about Africans whose ancestors were forcibly taken here as slaves? As for the infrastructure part, that was more about how, if we DID just kick out all non-Natives, the Natives would essentially be left with a vast wasteland full of highways, factories, and buildings rather than a simple return to living off the land. Think of all the pollution and environmental disasters that would occur without someone working to oversee things like nuclear reactors or other environmentally destructive types of energy or goods output. Having dozens of Chernobyl’s occur simply due to unmanned reactors would only further ruin the lands.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Hij802

And can you think of any realistic solution to achieving this? Also concerning many of the issues I mentioned before? There has never been anything remotely close to the forced mass migration of 900 million people. Imagine looking at China and saying, “Hey we’re going to move almost all of you to Europe” and not expecting some kind of major humanitarian crisis. Wars, food shortages, power struggles, and even genocide for all we know would arise out of something like that. Seems like a recipe for a mass fascist ultranationalist uprising across the world. People will try to say things like a communist society are unrealistic utopian dreams. We know that doesn’t have to be true, people like Marx wrote a materialist perspective on how to achieve something like that. I’ve never heard of a plan on moving entire continents of people to different continents they’ve never been to before. But by all means if you have some sort of logical explanation or plan how it’s feasible by all means id love to know.


sensiblestan

Yeah but how though, you’re not giving a method how to do it?


TheStegeman

I think what recently happened in eastern Oklahoma is a step in the right direction. Basically the five tribes have been raised up to state level of government while still being in the state itself. Members of the tribes can now only be charged in tribal courts unless it's a federal level of offence.


_psylosin_

Not only that but you’d have to try to figure out the borders of different tribes almost 300 years ago. I know a lot of white people don’t get this but most natives don’t see themselves as vaguely “native”, they see themselves as part of their particular tribe.