Trump tells minority Congresswomen to "go back where they came from"

[LaCroix]

Yeah, but look at it that way, he was desperately trying to distract us from Eppstein, and quickly, so he had to do something drastical to get Eppie out of the news rotation...

[Zaune]

Yeah, but look at it that way, he was desperately trying to distract us from Eppstein, and quickly, so he had to do something drastical to get Eppie out of the news rotation...

Pretty sure this doesn't constitute much of an improvement.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, but look at it that way, he was desperately trying to distract us from Eppstein, and quickly, so he had to do something drastical to get Eppie out of the news rotation...

Pretty sure this doesn't constitute much of an improvement.

Yeah, "I'm only being racist to distract from my pedophilia scandal" isn't much of a defense.

[Broomstick]

And it spreads... Kellyanne Conway is now quizzing people on their ancestry as if that had relevance to whether or not they can ask questions. (Emphasis added)

FEINBERG: Following up on the previous question: If the President was not telling these four congresswomen to return to their supposed countries of origin, to which countries was he referring?

CONWAY: What's your ethnicity?

FEINBERG: Um. Why is that relevant?

CONWAY: No, no -- because I'm asking a question. My ancestors are from Ireland and Italy.

FEINBERG: My own ethnicity is not relevant to the question I'm asking.

CONWAY: No no, it is, because you're asking, he said originally, he said originally from.

FEINBERG: But you know I'm asking --

CONWAY: But you know everything he has said since and to have a full conversation --

FEINBERG: So are you saying that the President was telling the Palestinian [inaudible] to go back to—[crosstalk]

CONWAY: The President's already commented on that and he's said a lot about this since that one tweet. He's put out a lot of tweets and he made himself available to all of you yesterday --

FEINBERG: No, just to the pool.

CONWAY: He's tired. A lot of us are sick and tired in this country of America coming last. To people who swore an oath of office.

So the process of de-legitmizing people of the "wrong" back ground continues.

Go on, keep saying this is all just part of US history and track record, keep telling yourself the pot of water in which you sit is not getting warmer. This reverses positive trends of the past several decades. The Trump administration is putting people in concentration camps. Now they're saying you don't have a right to ask questions unless you have the "correct" background/ancestry. This is not going to a good place.

[Lord Revan]

Yeah, but look at it that way, he was desperately trying to distract us from Eppstein, and quickly, so he had to do something drastical to get Eppie out of the news rotation...

Pretty sure this doesn't constitute much of an improvement.

Yeah, "I'm only being racist to distract from my pedophilia scandal" isn't much of a defense.

Well there's people who would consider being a racist a "lesser of 2 evils", granted even a lesser evil is still evil.

That said Trump isn't exactly the smartest person who exists when it comes to certain things so it could also be an attempt to play to his voter base, in an effort to distact them from the pedo scandal.

[Straha]

I am well aware of America's history with regards to genocide and slavery, and of the ongoing effects of that history. However, what you ignore is the decades of progress away from that past- slow, painful, incomplete, and grossly insufficient progress to be sure, but progress nonetheless. By ignoring that, so that you can pretend that Trump's ethnic cleansing campaign is nothing significant, you not only undermine the efforts to oppose Trump now, but do a grave insult to every single person who fought and suffered and died for that change, by dismissing their actions as fundamentally pointless.

Okay, seriously, what progress in this regard?

You bring up ethnic cleansing. Has the US ever tried to rectify the fact that it exists on stolen land taken in contravention of treaties and international law and through mass genocide of native populations? Has the US ever tried to apologize and make amends for the reservation system and then the attempts to force the destruction of Native cultures? Spoiler: no. No it hasn't.

This is one of the most absurd things about the rhetoric surrounding the migrant concentration camps. The constant spluttering of "Our country doesn't do this!" while we have the longest running continuous concentration camps in the reservation system still being maintained by federal policy is absurd. Coupled with the direct colonial and interventionist stance the US has taken towards Latin America (see: Chile, Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras, etc. etc. etc.) This insistence that we've been better in the past is nothing but MAGA through a fun-house mirror, and it's disturbing to see.

Bottom line: It is absurd to try and draw a distinction between "Trump's ethnic cleansing" and the US policy of ethnic cleansing when the US can only exist where it does through the historical legitimization of Ethnic Cleansing.

Also, gut check:

Has the US ever tried to engage in reparations for the labor forced out of Black folk across the country? Ever tried to engage in serious shifts of wealth to make up for the racial wealth gap? No, it hasn't.

Even in areas where people purport progress has been made, there hasn't been any substantive policy beyond rhetoric. School Segregation has been increasing for forty years, the racial wealth gap has been bad and getting worse for some time, and even simple things like voting rights have been undone through disenfranchisement via mass incarceration (which gets back to the question of forced labor), the dismantling of the VRA, and gerrymandering by white majorities.



Like, fucks sake man, when do you think actual serious progress was made on these issues in a deep and structural way? When do you think Racism, and the history of the US as a white ethno-state has ever been seriously altered? I want a date for that turning point.

Going back to examples from the 19th. Century to argue that Trump is no different than the norm and thus not worth getting worked up about is a level of historical ignorance or dishonesty I would normally expect to see from a Republican (like when they try to claim that the Democrats are the real racists based on the Democratic Party's policies during the Civil War and Reconstruction, while cloaking themselves in the legacy of Lincoln even as they fly Confederate flags).

None of those were 19th Century examples, you utter dingus. TR was President during the 20th century, Indian Boarding Schools were an active US Federal Government policy until the mid 20th century, and George Wallace was mid-to-late 20th Century politician and arguably the most influential southerner of his time.


There's this American psychosis which we're taught from youth to valorize the present and future and treat the historical as fundamentally detached from the now and something we can cherry-pick from. So much ink has been spilled on how we've forgotten Vietnam, forgotten the legacy of chattel slavery, forgotten the legacy of interventions in Latin America, forgotten the Indian Wars, etc. but nobody ever actually tries to inject these legacies which define us into the now. We simply recreate a present that has no ties to the past and object virulently when people try to do so in ways that upset our reconstructed narratives.

To just focus on Presidential politics, because you want to tie this to Trump. George Wallace ran in the 1972 Democratic Primary on an explicitly segregationist stance. He was on pace to, if not be the leader in delegate count, control the nomination via his delegates until he was shot and paralyzed in Maryland. Even then he still came second place in states won and was 250,000 votes behind the eventual nominee.

That nominee lost to Richard Nixon, whose entire base was the 'law and order' vote, and where he openly appealed to Southern discontent with integration to win popular support. It's no coincidence that mass incarceration, and thus the prevention of black economic mobility and black voting through felony disenfranchisement, started en masse in the presidency after Civil Rights and Voting Rights were made federal policies with the direct goal of undermining those policies (a project which Nixon was incredibly successful at.)

The next elected President was Carter, who launched his career to the national stage by running an incredibly racist campaign for Georgia governor, and then used his bona fides in that regard to win the South both in the Democratic Primary and in the General Election.

Reagan beat him by explicitly promising to end busing (read: School integration), and by diving into the arms of the newly mobilized evangelical right who were using every dog whistle in the books to maintain a culturally White South.

I would go on, but to restate the racist legacies of the Bushes and Clinton (or even Obama's immigration policies) is to beat a dead horse.


I make oblique reference to this in my last post, but the political philosopher Alain Badiou once said that the worst thing to happen to the US and the world order it was trying to construct was the collapse of the Soviet Union. He argued that as long as there was an alternative world order based, theoretically, on anti-colonialism and wealth redistribution the US had to restrain its worst impulses as a way to compete on a moral and philosophical level. On a global scale this meant professing a desire for global democracy and on a domestic level it meant rhetorically embracing wealth redistribution and and racial equality. When you bore down into it, he's not wrong. If you read the brief presented to the Supreme Court by the Department of Justice in Brown V. Board of Ed, for instance, it largely boils down to "this hurts us internationally when we compete with communist nations." At no point was the US fundamentally changed in its nature, these changes were opportunistic ploys as act of self-preservation and competitive gain.

(If you want to see nations that have tried to grapple with their colonial and racial past look at places like South Africa. Compare and contrast and you'll see what we lack.)

What makes Trump different from his predecessors isn't his policies or the embracement of racial rhetoric and the logic of white supremacy (a logic without which the US President cannot exist.) It's that he doesn't see the necessity to cloak it in a thin veneer of egalitarianism, and doesn't mind embracing a rhetoric of historical realism. It's a distinctly lunkheaded way to approach the office and its history, and fucking horrifying to watch, but there's a taint of the Fool from King Lear about it. Even if he's morally repugnant and monstrous in his effect, in his own way he fits perfectly into the fold of American history.

[The Romulan Republic]

And that's the truth, isn't it? Deep down (or not so deep down), you faux-progressives admire Trump because he "tells it like it is", because in your mind all of America is equally evil, but at least Trump is (in your mind) honest evil, or open evil (because somehow openly embracing and normalizing evil is better than ostracizing it as a society), and he gives you the satisfaction of being able to say that you were right all along about America. There's a part of you that wants him to win, because it will validate your cynicism, and let you have the satisfaction of saying "I told you so". Its also probably why you hate to admit that Russian interference or collusion happened (aside from your ideology requiring you to side with America's enemies regardless of facts). Because if you acknowledge that it happened, that Trump's election was illegitimate, then it interferes with the narrative that Trump is truly representative of the American nation and the will of its people.

What change has been made? Well, let's see. We no longer have millions of black people in slavery, minorities and women can actually hold high political office and vote (though the voting rights for minorities are being rolled back right now), gay people can get married instead of being thrown in prison for being gay if we include changes that aren't directly related to racism in this discussion...

No, it isn't enough. Its not nearly enough. It will never be enough until all people are truly equal, until no one has to worry about going hungry or dying of a treatable illness, until every single border has been erased and all people live in peace, until every person is aware of the full scope of the crimes that were committed, and every person who has suffered as a result of bigotry, historical or contemporary, has been compensated. And even then, it will never restore the millions of lives that were destroyed. But it is something. Those gains were made at terrible costs, and they make a concrete difference in the lives of millions of people. And Trump has now reversed our direction, from "slow and unsteady progress" to "rapidly moving in the wrong direction". This is what he was elected to do. You do not have to deny the reforms that have been made in order to call attention to the continuing atrocities, or to demand further action. These are not contradictory positions. Saying that there has been no change, so you can wallow in your simple, one-dimensional hate and cynicism, normalizes Trump, and it does an insult to every person who fought and died for those changes. It makes you, functionally, one of the Trumpers.

You no doubt think (presuming you are not simply lying) that you are being more progressive, more honest than I am. But you mistake simplicity for integrity. It is not enough to note America's actual sins- no, nothing less than regarding America as completely, irremably, unchangingly evil will suffice, even if you have to normalize and downplay fascism to do it.

That will have to suffice as a rebuttal. I see little point in arguing facts or evidence with someone who is dishonest or delusional enough to argue that there is no meaningful difference between American now and a hundred years ago, or fifty years ago for that matter.

Oh, one more thing: you did, in fact, cite examples from the 19th. Century as evidence that America has not fundamentally changed:

The entire basis from the US from its founding until today can be tied to two foundational genocides: The ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from their land and confinement to the reservation system (Something that's still going on, and was the cited inspiration of concentration camps around the world throughout the 19th and 20th century.) and the creation of a forced cheap labour through African chattel slavery and explicit segregation. At no point has the U.S. ever tried to undo the damage done with either of these issues, always insisting that the genocidal status quo can be excused because the events are 'historical' and 'past us.' As if the reservation doesn't continue to exist or as if the dispossession of the descendants of African slaves could ever be overcome by waving a magic wand and declaring that they were 'free' now, without access to material wealth or the undoing of the ideology of white supremacy (without which the United States cannot exist as a concept.) To put it simply: As long as the US sits on stolen land and uses the winnings of uncompensated forced labor it will always be inextricably tied to, as you so eloquently put it, 'this stuff.'

If you're going to lie, at least don't insult our intelligence by being so obvious about it.

[Straha]

And that's the truth, isn't it? Deep down (or not so deep down), you faux-progressives admire Trump because he "tells it like it is", because in your mind all of America is equally evil, but at least Trump is (in your mind) honest evil, or open evil (because somehow openly embracing and normalizing evil is better than ostracizing it as a society), and he gives you the satisfaction of being able to say that you were right all along about America. There's a part of you that wants him to win, because it will validate your cynicism, and let you have the satisfaction of saying "I told you so". Its also probably why you hate to admit that Russian interference or collusion happened (aside from your ideology requiring you to side with America's enemies regardless of facts). Because if you acknowledge that it happened, that Trump's election was illegitimate, then it interferes with the narrative that Trump is truly representative of the American nation and the will of its people.

What a sad paranoid little man you are. I genuinely feel pity for you and your terrified chiaroscuric world view.

That will have to suffice as a rebuttal. I see little point in arguing facts or evidence with someone who is dishonest or delusional enough to argue that there is no meaningful difference between American now and a hundred years ago, or fifty years ago for that matter.

Since you constantly cite the history of the board as being better than now, let me cite one of its oldest tropes. "Concession Accepted."

If you don't have a defense of the legality of America being on the land that it's on you cannot advance this theory of a fundamental rupture from history in a meaningful sense. And as long as that's true your foot stomping that "no, things are fundamentally different now" is unwarranted and meaningless.

Oh, one more thing: you did, in fact, cite examples from the 19th. Century as evidence that America has not fundamentally changed:

The entire basis from the US from its founding until today can be tied to two foundational genocides: The ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from their land and confinement to the reservation system (Something that's still going on, and was the cited inspiration of concentration camps around the world throughout the 19th and 20th century.) and the creation of a forced cheap labour through African chattel slavery and explicit segregation. At no point has the U.S. ever tried to undo the damage done with either of these issues, always insisting that the genocidal status quo can be excused because the events are 'historical' and 'past us.' As if the reservation doesn't continue to exist or as if the dispossession of the descendants of African slaves could ever be overcome by waving a magic wand and declaring that they were 'free' now, without access to material wealth or the undoing of the ideology of white supremacy (without which the United States cannot exist as a concept.) To put it simply: As long as the US sits on stolen land and uses the winnings of uncompensated forced labor it will always be inextricably tied to, as you so eloquently put it, 'this stuff.'

If you're going to lie, at least don't insult our intelligence by being so obvious about it.

I understand that you have trouble with reading comprehension. I have bolded the relevant sections for you so you can understand what a tool you are making yourself look like.

[The Romulan Republic]

I at least bothered to write up a response with actual arguments. Your post is about five lines, half of which are just personal insults. So I'd say that if anything, its me who should be saying "concession accepted".

I would like to further address the one actual argument you raised that wasn't just personal attacks: that because the fundamental white supremacist underpinnings of America have not changed (ie America being on stolen land), then none of those other changes matter.

Personally, I view that as self-evidently false, but let me try once more to explain my view. Just because an underlying problem remains does not mean that all other events are meaningless. Its like saying there's no point saving someone's life because death still exists. Its a dangerously black and white view of the world (the hall mark of a fanatic), where unless this one thing is solved, nothing matters.

That DOES NOT mean that I support, condone or defend that unlawful possession of stolen land or resources, or consider it in any way justified. And no, I am not going to offer a defense for America being on stolen land. If I did, you would quite rightly argue that I am racist. If I were to offer a "defense", it would be that however horrific the theft of that land was, it is now occupied by hundreds of millions of non-First Nations peoples who cannot be expelled from it short of perpetrating the greatest genocide in history, and who would understandably not consent to the dissolution of the United States government, the loss of their citizenships, and having to live under the government of one or another of the tribes that originally inhabited those lands. I realize that there's an irony there, but if I were to offer an argument for the possession of that stolen land, it would be that it is practically impossible to turn the clock back, however great a crime was committed, and that the only way to undo the effects of the original genocide would be by perpetrating a new act of ethnic cleansing against the descendants of the original perpetrators. That would still not excuse the original crime, however, or absolve us as a society of the obligation to compensate the original possessors of the land, and to acknowledge the original theft.

If it were up to me, I would have the US government sit down with representatives of all the First Nations peoples and renegotiate our relationship from scratch, openly and honestly, with everything on the table, and try to reach a solution that was acceptable to all, and legally binding (one to which all parties would have to agree, not one imposed from above on the First Nations). And if that means, for example, paying those tribes fair market value for all the land currently occupied unlawfully by the United States (in addition to reparations for past atrocities), then so be it. Although its possible that some other solution might be preferred.

And yes, I recognize that my proposed solution is basically "throw money at the problem", but I'll be damned if I can think of any other that would be more just and actually practically feasible.

[The Romulan Republic]

Taking a break from Straha's derail to justify downplaying Trump's racism and going back to the actual topic (ie Trump's racism):

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, explicitly uses "go back where you came from" as an example of illegal workplace harassment and discrimination.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/fed ... eda5a390cc

Lawmakers spent most of Tuesday hashing out whether to condemn President Donald Trump’s racist comment that four congresswomen of color should “go back” to their ancestral countries, but a federal agency has already made the decision for them.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has written specific rules that protect people, mostly immigrants, against employment discrimination on the basis of their national origin. The agency is responsible for enforcing laws that prohibit discrimination and harassment based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age and disability.

“Ethnic slurs and other verbal or physical conduct because of nationality are illegal if they are severe or pervasive and create an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment, interfere with work performance, or negatively affect job opportunities,” the commission said on its website to describe harassment based on national origin.

“Examples of potentially unlawful conduct include insults, taunting, or ethnic epithets, such as making fun of a person’s foreign accent or comments like, ‘Go back to where you came from,’ whether made by supervisors or co-workers,” it continued.

Trump and his followers insist he was not being racist when he tweeted Sunday that Democratic Reps. Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came” after the lawmakers, all four American citizens, criticized him.

Three of the four women were born in the U.S., and one came from Somalia as a child. They held a press conference Monday calling Trump’s comments “blatantly racist” and “the agenda of white nationalists.”

The president’s tweets were racist, and many people of color have memories of being told the same thing that the EEOC has deemed harassment.

The EEOC cites “go back to where you came from” as a classic form of discrimination that violates civil rights. The President’s bigoted words are so contrary to who we are as a country that we literally have laws against them. pic.twitter.com/FcD1TcKcKE

— Tim Kaine (@timkaine) July 16, 2019
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) tweeted a screenshot of the EEOC’s rule on Tuesday, saying, “The President’s bigoted words are so contrary to who we are as a country that we literally have laws against them.”

On Monday, the EEOC posted its own tweet detailing how to file a charge of discrimination that asks the agency to take action. The tweet did not mention the incident between the Democrats and Trump, though it was posted one day after the president’s remarks.

A charge of discrimination asserts that an employer engaged in employment discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or genetic information and it asks the EEOC to take remedial action. https://t.co/3dHOcHxrCz#MondayMotivatio ... UtRNIJcXA8

— U.S. EEOC (@USEEOC) July 15, 2019
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article referred to Tim Kaine as a representative. He is a senator.

[Straha]

I at least bothered to write up a response with actual arguments. Your post is about five lines, half of which are just personal insults. So I'd say that if anything, its me who should be saying "concession accepted".

Buddy, when you self-admittedly ignore the majority of my post, including the crux of my critique being that there is an active and on-going historical erasure that is used to belittle and ignore attempts to point out continuity between past and present and the specific examples I raise, and instead opt for for a hollow paean to 'progress' you can't say you've rebutted shit.

I would like to further address the one actual argument you raised that wasn't just personal attacks: that because the fundamental white supremacist underpinnings of America have not changed (ie America being on stolen land), then none of those other changes matter.

Personally, I view that as self-evidently false, but let me try once more to explain my view. Just because an underlying problem remains does not mean that all other events are meaningless. Its like saying there's no point saving someone's life because death still exists. Its a dangerously black and white view of the world (the hall mark of a fanatic), where unless this one thing is solved, nothing matters.

That DOES NOT mean that I support, condone or defend that unlawful possession of stolen land or resources, or consider it in any way justified. And no, I am not going to offer a defense for America being on stolen land. If I did, you would quite rightly argue that I am racist. If I were to offer a "defense", it would be that however horrific the theft of that land was, it is now occupied by hundreds of millions of non-First Nations peoples who cannot be expelled from it short of perpetrating the greatest genocide in history, and who would understandably not consent to the dissolution of the United States government, the loss of their citizenships, and having to live under the government of one or another of the tribes that originally inhabited those lands. I realize that there's an irony there, but if I were to offer an argument for the possession of that stolen land, it would be that it is practically impossible to turn the clock back, however great a crime was committed, and that the only way to undo the effects of the original genocide would be by perpetrating a new act of ethnic cleansing against the descendants of the original perpetrators.

It's interesting to me that you can only imagine true justice being wrought via a mirror image of what the US did to Natives. This isn't unique to just you in the settler imagination, it's super common in discussions around this and was a core part of the White South African move against dismantling apartheid as well. Nick Estes talks about it in his book Our History is the Future as well. It kind of lays bare how thin the veneer of 'civilization' is behind the brutality of the Settler Colonial project.

If it were up to me, I would have the US government sit down with representatives of all the First Nations peoples and renegotiate our relationship from scratch, openly and honestly, with everything on the table, and try to reach a solution that was acceptable to all, and legally binding (one to which all parties would have to agree, not one imposed from above on the First Nations). And if that means, for example, paying those tribes fair market value for all the land currently occupied unlawfully by the United States (in addition to reparations for past atrocities), then so be it. Although its possible that some other solution might be preferred.

But you've already taken off the table what most of the tribes want, see notably in US v. Sioux Nation of Indians, their land back and freedom from the concentration camp that is the Reservation. You've not just taken it off the table, you've called the concept of it a genocide. And while doing so you've not answered the fundamental question that's been broached by this: Why should we act like the United States as a nation-state whose laws, system of property ownership, and form of government are inextricably tied to stolen land and explicit white supremacy can jettison its history and suddenly act as if those principles have no control over its future action? On a fundamental level, if we think that racism and white supremacy are irreconcilable with justice and good governance then there can be no defense of the US Government without a fundamental rupture in its organizing principles.

(Nor do you account for the fact that the massive wealth transfer you seem to be reaching for would require that the US no longer exist in any meaningful contiguous sense in terms of monetary capability.)


And, because your latent but unstated argument is to splutter and say "Well, that's just how it is and we have to make practical concessions to how the world is structured." then you've descended to the exact same argument that you view as being so abhorrent as to make someone a Putin patsy when offered in defense of Russian decision-making viz-a-viz foreign policy.

[The Romulan Republic]

But you've already taken off the table what most of the tribes want, see notably in US v. Sioux Nation of Indians, their land back and freedom from the concentration camp that is the Reservation. You've not just taken it off the table, you've called the concept of it a genocide.

I did not say that. What I said was that a discussion should be had with all options on the table, and posited fairly buying the land as the best option I could think of, while explicitly noting that any agreement should be one that all parties agree to, not one imposed by the Federal Government. I also said nothing whatsoever about maintaining the reservation system, which I view as deplorable. I am deeply skeptical of the idea of simply giving all the land back, because however horrific and unjust the theft of those lands was, they are currently inhabited by hundreds of millions of Americans who are not going to just go away, and could not be practically relocated or compelled to accept the dissolution of their nation and the loss of their rights as Americans even if it were desirable. A practical reality that you have not addressed.

And while doing so you've not answered the fundamental question that's been broached by this: Why should we act like the United States as a nation-state whose laws, system of property ownership, and form of government are inextricably tied to stolen land and explicit white supremacy can jettison its history and suddenly act as if those principles have no control over its future action? On a fundamental level, if we think that racism and white supremacy are irreconcilable with justice and good governance then there can be no defense of the US Government without a fundamental rupture in its organizing principles.

So essentially, you are arguing that because the past affects the present and future, it is impossible for a nation to ever change its nature (or at least for the US to do so, I'm sure you'd be more generous regarding the foundational crimes of another nation such as, say, Russia). I regard that as both dangerous oversimplification, and as an argument which inhibits and discourages any attempt at reform or justice by labeling it as impossible/meaningless from the outset. And, again, insults the efforts and sacrifices of every reformer in American history.

But if that's your view, then let me ask you a few frank questions in turn:

1. Do you believe that there is any meaningful reform the US could undertake short of its dissolution and the return of all occupied land to the First Nations?

2. If not, then how would you propose to implement such a plan, taking into account that those lands are currently inhabited by hundreds of millions of Americans?

If the only solution you will accept is one that is impossible, then there is no point to anything you are saying. You're effectively spending all this time on a very lengthy way of saying "The world sucks and always will, so don't try to ever make anything better." Which is a very amenable attitude to fascists like Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

Essentially, my solution, insofar as I have one, would be:

1. Ask the tribes what they want.

2. See how much of that can be done consistent with the rule of law, fundamental human rights, and physical feasibility.

3. Do the above regardless of cost.

[Rogue 9]

...ANYWAY, on the actual topic, the bright side: Washington Post

Trump’s racist comments can be used against him in court as judges cite them to block policies

By Fred Barbash
July 16 at 7:08 PM

President Trump’s latest racist remarks, like many of his comments before them, can and will be used against him in court.

And if his losing record on immigration cases is any guide, they will be used effectively.

In conjunction with other factors, they could help persuade judges to block policies he claims are crucial to his agenda, particularly on immigration, on the grounds of racial or ethnic animus.

Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post

That’s been the pattern ever since Trump took office.

His words — about Mexican immigrants as “criminals, drug dealers” and “rapists,” Nigerians going back “to their huts,” Haitians all having AIDS, or of too many migrants from “shithole countries” — have helped stall much of Trump’s immigration crackdown.

It hasn’t been any particular comment that has made the difference in court but rather the accumulation of them.

The latest tweets, saying that four Democratic members of the House, all citizens and women of color, should “go back” to “the crime infested places from which they came,” just builds on the others.

Smart lawyers combine the cumulative record with more mundane administrative law complaints, turning relatively routine cases into more serious Equal Protection Clause controversies. That gives judges greater license to probe the motives of the government.

The comments directed at Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) could, for example, figure into challenges to Trump’s new asylum restrictions, suggested Sejal Zota, an immigration rights lawyer at Just Futures Law based in Durham, N.C., who helped block the administration’s efforts to end “temporary protected status” (TPS) for Haitians.

“I don’t think these comments are enough in and of themselves, but they can be helpful to help establish a long record of xenophobia and bigotry towards people of color and people he perceives as immigrants, which is important when you can connect the dots to his changes in immigration law,” she said. “In our TPS case, you could see the pretext based on statements by other officials involved in the process.”

The earliest example of the pattern came at the outset of the Trump administration, when courts across the country blocked implementation of the president’s travel ban, citing, among other things, anti-Muslim remarks by Trump and others around him.

In judicial circles, some such as Judge Derrick K. Watson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii viewed Trump’s comments as evidence of the real reason for travel restrictions — religious animus rather than national security.

The travel ban decisions forced the administration to rewrite Trump’s order three times. The Supreme Court, reviewing the third version of the ban, ultimately approved it on June 26, 2018, roughly six months after Trump’s initial executive order.

The latest example came June 24, when Judge George J. Hazel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland decided to take another look at the administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, in light of new evidence suggesting that the motive might have been to “shift political power in favor of white voters and away from Hispanic voters.”

He suggested that such a motive was supported by “the Trump campaign, with the backdrop of many statements and tweets demonstrating discriminatory animus,” a theory he had rejected before the new information came to light.

Although the administration dropped the census proposal on July 11 after a defeat at the Supreme Court, Hazel has not formally closed the case before him, according to court records.

In between the travel ban and the census came four rulings blocking Trump’s attempt to eliminate Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the program that shields from deportation young undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, each citing disparaging anti-immigrant remarks by the president.

In addition, three separate decisions citing Trump’s “shithole countries” comments helped block a plan by the administration to end temporary protected status for migrants from countries affected by natural or man-made disasters.

The administration’s action, still being appealed, would have jeopardized the legal presence in the United States of some 300,000 people from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua and Sudan.

fred.barbash@washpost.com

This can work up until he successfully stacks enough of the judiciary that it'll be hard to get a case in front of a judge that he didn't choose.

[Gandalf]

And that's the truth, isn't it? Deep down (or not so deep down), you faux-progressives admire Trump because he "tells it like it is", because in your mind all of America is equally evil, but at least Trump is (in your mind) honest evil, or open evil (because somehow openly embracing and normalizing evil is better than ostracizing it as a society), and he gives you the satisfaction of being able to say that you were right all along about America. There's a part of you that wants him to win, because it will validate your cynicism, and let you have the satisfaction of saying "I told you so". Its also probably why you hate to admit that Russian interference or collusion happened (aside from your ideology requiring you to side with America's enemies regardless of facts). Because if you acknowledge that it happened, that Trump's election was illegitimate, then it interferes with the narrative that Trump is truly representative of the American nation and the will of its people.

By that same rationale, does that mean that people hate Trump because he makes it harder to keep up lies about how shitty the US is?

[The Romulan Republic]

And that's the truth, isn't it? Deep down (or not so deep down), you faux-progressives admire Trump because he "tells it like it is", because in your mind all of America is equally evil, but at least Trump is (in your mind) honest evil, or open evil (because somehow openly embracing and normalizing evil is better than ostracizing it as a society), and he gives you the satisfaction of being able to say that you were right all along about America. There's a part of you that wants him to win, because it will validate your cynicism, and let you have the satisfaction of saying "I told you so". Its also probably why you hate to admit that Russian interference or collusion happened (aside from your ideology requiring you to side with America's enemies regardless of facts). Because if you acknowledge that it happened, that Trump's election was illegitimate, then it interferes with the narrative that Trump is truly representative of the American nation and the will of its people.

By that same rationale, does that mean that people hate Trump because he makes it harder to keep up lies about how shitty the US is?

"Both Sides, Both Sides!"

Some people might just hate Trump because he embarasses the US by saying the quiet parts out loud, sure. But most people who hate him hate him because he has made it abundantly clear that he cares nothing for anyone but himself and that he is actively hostile to the well-being of anyone who isn't a straight white rich American man (or a foreign dictator or oligarch).

I hate him because he's a lying, racist, raping, corrupt, bellicose, manipulative, narcissitic, sociopathic, despotic mobster piece of shit who should die in a maximum security Federal prison.

[Straha]

Okay, we're going to deal with this in reverse order:

So essentially, you are arguing that because the past affects the present and future, it is impossible for a nation to ever change its nature (or at least for the US to do so, I'm sure you'd be more generous regarding the foundational crimes of another nation such as, say, Russia). I regard that as both dangerous oversimplification, and as an argument which inhibits and discourages any attempt at reform or justice by labeling it as impossible/meaningless from the outset. And, again, insults the efforts and sacrifices of every reformer in American history.

That is a dangerous oversimplification. Because you are, in fact, oversimplifying it instead of grasping with the ideas being presented. (Also, interesting to see that you can't help but bring up Russia as a life jacket anywhere you find yourself adrift.)


Let's have a quick nutshell primer on the History of North America:

• There are many nations and tribes that exist across North America.
• Europeans come to North America from Europe.
• Europeans assert that they have greater title to the land than the Native Tribes, because the Native Tribes are savage, and White people (a newly created category) always have a claim to land that supersedes them. This principle comes to be known as the "Doctrine of Discovery".
• The United States is founded.
• The United States publicly accepts the Doctrine of Discovery in one of its first acts, and the Supreme Court rules in Johnson V. M'Intosh that this holds true across the United States. That policy and court case become the basis of US Property Law.
• Using this doctrine Native American tribes are dispossessed, moved across the country to the shittiest land around, forcibly enclosed and starved. While the land is given over to White folk to with as they please.
• At no point in US history is the Doctrine of Discovery renounced, or any of the legal cases supporting the broad principle of the superior interest of the US government over Native nations and white folk over native interests renounced.

And this isn't even getting into things like the Boarding School System, the Dawes Act, the creation and violation of treaties, diminishment, etc. etc. etc.

Just think about this for a moment in principle: Why is it that when colonists came to North America it was under the laws and flags of European nations and not them migrating into pre-existing native nations?

This means that the American system of property law, the American claim to land, and the material wealth that America has extracted from that land are all bound up in White Supremacy, and if you want to rip up white supremacy root, stem, and branch that these systems must be viewed as illegitmate.


This isn't a 'national character' claim (although, it certainly is part of the national character), it's a straight up factual matter: The US legal system is fundamentally racist, and recognizing and defending its legitimacy means recognizing and defending the legitimacy of a racist institution. Full stop.

But you've already taken off the table what most of the tribes want, see notably in US v. Sioux Nation of Indians, their land back and freedom from the concentration camp that is the Reservation. You've not just taken it off the table, you've called the concept of it a genocide.

I did not say that. What I said was that a discussion should be had with all options on the table, and posited fairly buying the land as the best option I could think of, while explicitly noting that any agreement should be one that all parties agree to, not one imposed by the Federal Government.

This is what you said. Emphasis in bold:

And no, I am not going to offer a defense for America being on stolen land. If I did, you would quite rightly argue that I am racist. If I were to offer a "defense", it would be that however horrific the theft of that land was, it is now occupied by hundreds of millions of non-First Nations peoples who cannot be expelled from it short of perpetrating the greatest genocide in history, and who would understandably not consent to the dissolution of the United States government, the loss of their citizenships, and having to live under the government of one or another of the tribes that originally inhabited those lands. I realize that there's an irony there, but if I were to offer an argument for the possession of that stolen land, it would be that it is practically impossible to turn the clock back, however great a crime was committed, and that the only way to undo the effects of the original genocide would be by perpetrating a new act of ethnic cleansing against the descendants of the original perpetrators.

To be fair, you didn't just call giving back the land to the original holders a 'genocide'. You called it 'the greatest genocide in history' and 'a new act of ethnic cleansing.'

Honest question: Do you write your own posts? Are you some Luther Blissett/Wu Ming artistic project as an amalgamation of writers who don't always coordinate between posts? Is this some large scale prank? Because, I really, genuinely, honestly don't know how to respond to your not being able to recognize what you just wrote. Were this in any other context I would assume you were a troll, but I think I assume 'better' of you here, and that almost makes it worse...

I also said nothing whatsoever about maintaining the reservation system, which I view as deplorable.

To undo the reservation system is to recognize that US claim to land across most of the country is fundamentally broken. This means that recognizing the existence of states like the Dakotas, Minnesota, Colorado, Georgia, Alabama, etc. would then be 'deplorable'.

And, to loop back to the main thrust of the thread, if you think the reservation system is deplorable (which it is) and racist (which I hope you think it is), and the US has upheld the reservation system as a matter of policy for the last hundred years under the office of the President. That means that the US and the office of the President are also, gasp, racist.

1. Do you believe that there is any meaningful reform the US could undertake short of its dissolution and the return of all occupied land to the First Nations?

I think the dissolution of the US and the recognition of the illegitimacy of its claim to land, its wealth, and its legal system are a necessary step for a decolonial and anti-racist project. I don't think (nor do most of the thinkers behind these projects imagine) this requires a mass exodus of settlers, and I think the question of how to fit reparations for Black massively complicates this project. I think that we can take a partial roadmap from South Africa in the way that the apartheid regime was dismantled, a new constitution formulated, and there was a fundamental recognition that the current nation of South Africa exists as a distinct entity from the prior state. I think that the ANC didn't go far enough in its goals (and certainly failed in many of its promises), but there's a start. But that requires that settlers understand that the nation they live in in the future isn't 'their' nation first and foremost.

It is entirely possible a new entity can be made, perhaps even a new 'United States,' within the current borders of the nation. But the current one has got to go.

Essentially, my solution, insofar as I have one, would be:

1. Ask the tribes what they want.

2. See how much of that can be done consistent with the rule of law, fundamental human rights, and physical feasibility.

3. Do the above regardless of cost.

And if the Sioux Nation demands that the US dissolve the states of the Dakotas and Minnesota, that the land be returned to their sovereignty, and that the US pay monetary damages for the time the land was out of their possession, what do you do?

[The Romulan Republic]

That is a dangerous oversimplification. Because you are, in fact, oversimplifying it instead of grasping with the ideas being presented. (Also, interesting to see that you can't help but bring up Russia as a life jacket anywhere you find yourself adrift.)

I bring up Russia to point out the obvious hypocrisy of yourself and many others on this board between how they treat American crimes, vs. how they treat crimes by America's adversaries. In my view, you are either against imperialism, bigotry, and despotism, or you are not. You don't get to be against it when another side does it, and turn a blind eye to it when another side does.

Let's have a quick nutshell primer on the History of North America:

• There are many nations and tribes that exist across North America.
• Europeans come to North America from Europe.
• Europeans assert that they have greater title to the land than the Native Tribes, because the Native Tribes are savage, and White people (a newly created category) always have a claim to land that supersedes them. This principle comes to be known as the "Doctrine of Discovery".
• The United States is founded.
• The United States publicly accepts the Doctrine of Discovery in one of its first acts, and the Supreme Court rules in Johnson V. M'Intosh that this holds true across the United States. That policy and court case become the basis of US Property Law.
• Using this doctrine Native American tribes are dispossessed, moved across the country to the shittiest land around, forcibly enclosed and starved. While the land is given over to White folk to with as they please.
• At no point in US history is the Doctrine of Discovery renounced, or any of the legal cases supporting the broad principle of the superior interest of the US government over Native nations and white folk over native interests renounced.

And this isn't even getting into things like the Boarding School System, the Dawes Act, the creation and violation of treaties, diminishment, etc. etc. etc.

This is obviously a simplified history, but I acknowledge that it is, to my knowledge, broadly accurate.

Just think about this for a moment in principle: Why is it that when colonists came to North America it was under the laws and flags of European nations and not them migrating into pre-existing native nations?

You do not need to convince me that many of the actions taken by European colonists were crimes and atrocities. Where we disagree is on how best to redress that now (and what we can do to address that now).

This means that the American system of property law, the American claim to land, and the material wealth that America has extracted from that land are all bound up in White Supremacy, and if you want to rip up white supremacy root, stem, and branch that these systems must be viewed as illegitmate.

Its a compelling argument, I admit, but it runs into serious difficulties in terms of what is practically feasible to accomplish, at least in the foreseable future.

I also believe that it is possible, and sometimes necessary (however frustrating), to introduce reforms in steps, and to modify or reinterpret bad laws so that they serve a more just purpose, rather than an all-or-nothing deal where either you scrap the entire system in one stroke or its white supremacist.

This isn't a 'national character' claim (although, it certainly is part of the national character), it's a straight up factual matter: The US legal system is fundamentally racist, and recognizing and defending its legitimacy means recognizing and defending the legitimacy of a racist institution. Full stop.

The problem is, if you completely throw out that legal system, you are basically advocating anarchy, and closing all doors to reform save for violent conflict. If you start from the position that all US law is white supremacist and therefore invalid and must be abolished, then where do you go from there? Even any attempt to draft new laws from scratch would require an agreed-upon legal frame work and standards to work within. Determining who would draft those laws would require a political framework.

You can't just start over from scratch, however much you might want to. You start with what you have, which is the existing political and legal system, and then try to steer it in a better direction. Or you try to burn it all, and hope something better rises from the ashes. It seldom does.

This is what you said. Emphasis in bold:

And no, I am not going to offer a defense for America being on stolen land. If I did, you would quite rightly argue that I am racist. If I were to offer a "defense", it would be that however horrific the theft of that land was, it is now occupied by hundreds of millions of non-First Nations peoples who cannot be expelled from it short of perpetrating the greatest genocide in history, and who would understandably not consent to the dissolution of the United States government, the loss of their citizenships, and having to live under the government of one or another of the tribes that originally inhabited those lands. I realize that there's an irony there, but if I were to offer an argument for the possession of that stolen land, it would be that it is practically impossible to turn the clock back, however great a crime was committed, and that the only way to undo the effects of the original genocide would be by perpetrating a new act of ethnic cleansing against the descendants of the original perpetrators.

To be fair, you didn't just call giving back the land to the original holders a 'genocide'. You called it 'the greatest genocide in history' and 'a new act of ethnic cleansing.'

Honest question: Do you write your own posts? Are you some Luther Blissett/Wu Ming artistic project as an amalgamation of writers who don't always coordinate between posts? Is this some large scale prank? Because, I really, genuinely, honestly don't know how to respond to your not being able to recognize what you just wrote. Were this in any other context I would assume you were a troll, but I think I assume 'better' of you here, and that almost makes it worse...

I said that the hundreds of millions of people residing on that land could not be expelled short of a massive genocide. That is not a moral judgement on the legitimacy of their claim to the land, it is a statement of fact.

If you support a solution that does not involve mass relocation, then obviously the terms genocide or ethnic cleansing would not need to apply. The "contradiction" came when I (accurately) described mass expulsion of the current population as something that would require a genocide to implement, and you (either through sloppiness or dishonesty) interpreted that as "TRR thinks returning the land to the natives is genocide". If your solution is to place those lands under new (First Nations) rule without forcibly removing the current residents, then that is not something I would characterize as genocide (albeit extremely problematic and practically difficult in numerous other ways).

To undo the reservation system is to recognize that US claim to land across most of the country is fundamentally broken. This means that recognizing the existence of states like the Dakotas, Minnesota, Colorado, Georgia, Alabama, etc. would then be 'deplorable'.

There are a number of possible solutions here, depending on what the parties concerned are all willing to accept. Including:

1. Renegotiate the treaties, paying to (fairly) purchase the land those states are on.

2. Alter current state boundaries (Congress and state legislatures can do this) to cede portions of those states back to the First Nations. Although I am deeply concerned about the precedent that allowing secession movements, or creating race-based states, would set.

3. Hold a Constitutional Convention where everything, including the extent of the nation's borders, is on the table.

I acknowledge that permitting the outright separation of large parts of the country would be deeply problematic to me, not because I regard the land as rightfully America's, but because it would encourage other (ie white supremacist) secession movements, and because I am ultimately an advocate of global government, and see ethnic/nationalist secession movements as fundamentally moving the world in the wrong direction. So my conflict here is not between the American status quo and Native rights, but between two principles that are both deeply important to me: racial justice, and political globalization. I admit that I don't have a simple or easy answer to that.

I will never support race-based states in any form, because race-based states in a globalized world can only be maintained through acts of despotism.

And, to loop back to the main thrust of the thread, if you think the reservation system is deplorable (which it is) and racist (which I hope you think it is), and the US has upheld the reservation system as a matter of policy for the last hundred years under the office of the President. That means that the US and the office of the President are also, gasp, racist.

An office can commit racist acts without the office being, by its nature, fundamentally racist. Upholding the reservation system has been a policy of the Presidency, but it is not a fundamental requirement of the Presidency.

I think the dissolution of the US and the recognition of the illegitimacy of its claim to land, its wealth, and its legal system are a necessary step for a decolonial and anti-racist project. I don't think (nor do most of the thinkers behind these projects imagine) this requires a mass exodus of settlers, and I think the question of how to fit reparations for Black massively complicates this project. I think that we can take a partial roadmap from South Africa in the way that the apartheid regime was dismantled, a new constitution formulated, and there was a fundamental recognition that the current nation of South Africa exists as a distinct entity from the prior state. I think that the ANC didn't go far enough in its goals (and certainly failed in many of its promises), but there's a start. But that requires that settlers understand that the nation they live in in the future isn't 'their' nation first and foremost.

It is entirely possible a new entity can be made, perhaps even a new 'United States,' within the current borders of the nation. But the current one has got to go.

Thank you for the clarification. This is is a more reasonable position, and one that I could perhaps theoretically support (comparisons about South Africa aside, as I am not sufficiently informed on its post-colonial history to argue its merits or lackthereof), even if its implementation is not politically feasible at the moment. What you are describing when you refer to creating a fundamentally different nation within the same boundaries is essentially holding a Constitutional Convention and rewriting the Constitution from scratch, yes?

I think the day for that is probably coming, but probably not now. Because if we held a Constitutional Convention now, the Alt. Reich would use it to try to force Neo-Fascist theocracy down our throats, and violently revolt if they failed. I think the nation is too polarized right now for such a convention to be likely to come to any consensus at all, much less the one you want.

And if the Sioux Nation demands that the US dissolve the states of the Dakotas and Minnesota, that the land be returned to their sovereignty, and that the US pay monetary damages for the time the land was out of their possession, what do you do?

I'd agree to the momentary damages, though I suspect that the scale would require them to be paid over time rather than in a single sum.

I'd try to negotiate an alternative compromise on dissolving three states. Failing that, I suppose the only lawful way to move forward on the issue would be a Constitutional convention.

[Gandalf]

"Both Sides, Both Sides!"

Some people might just hate Trump because he embarasses the US by saying the quiet parts out loud, sure. But most people who hate him hate him because he has made it abundantly clear that he cares nothing for anyone but himself and that he is actively hostile to the well-being of anyone who isn't a straight white rich American man (or a foreign dictator or oligarch).

I hate him because he's a lying, racist, raping, corrupt, bellicose, manipulative, narcissitic, sociopathic, despotic mobster piece of shit who should die in a maximum security Federal prison.

How are you getting "both sides" from what I posted?

If you can somehow infer a dastardly anti-American motive from my posts, then can't I take your defences as being similarly motivated by some nationalism?

[The Romulan Republic]

"Both Sides, Both Sides!"

Some people might just hate Trump because he embarasses the US by saying the quiet parts out loud, sure. But most people who hate him hate him because he has made it abundantly clear that he cares nothing for anyone but himself and that he is actively hostile to the well-being of anyone who isn't a straight white rich American man (or a foreign dictator or oligarch).

I hate him because he's a lying, racist, raping, corrupt, bellicose, manipulative, narcissitic, sociopathic, despotic mobster piece of shit who should die in a maximum security Federal prison.

How are you getting "both sides" from what I posted?

Because when I suggest that anti-American so-called progressives might defend Trump on certain issues, or defend his legitimacy as President, because he makes American look bad, you immediately try to turn it around and say that by the same reasoning, I must just hate him because he makes American look bad, rather than, you know, because he's an absolutely abhorrent piece of shit who routinely personifies the worst of humanity in his actions and words.

If you can somehow infer a dastardly anti-American motive from my posts, then can't I take your defences as being similarly motivated by some nationalism?

My comments about faux progressives sympathizing with Trump because he makes American look bad weren't actually directed at you, so its interesting that you take them as such.

[Straha]

You do not need to convince me that many of the actions taken by European colonists were crimes and atrocities. Where we disagree is on how best to redress that now (and what we can do to address that now).

You still miss the fundamental point. It's not a past tense 'were' crimes. It's a present tense 'are.' There is a direct unbroken line in action between then and now, and nothing has ruptured that. To treat these crimes as historical is to be an accomplice in their perpetuation.

This means that the American system of property law, the American claim to land, and the material wealth that America has extracted from that land are all bound up in White Supremacy, and if you want to rip up white supremacy root, stem, and branch that these systems must be viewed as illegitmate.

Its a compelling argument, I admit, but it runs into serious difficulties in terms of what is practically feasible to accomplish, at least in the foreseable future.

I also believe that it is possible, and sometimes necessary (however frustrating), to introduce reforms in steps, and to modify or reinterpret bad laws so that they serve a more just purpose, rather than an all-or-nothing deal where either you scrap the entire system in one stroke or its white supremacist.

1. You are the one who at the top of your post said "you are either against imperialism, bigotry, and despotism, or you are not". If you acknowledge that the US is inextricably linked to racial imperialism then you need to position yourself against it. If you think nuance is important when it comes to racial property ownership and not, say, foreign policy then maybe you should look inwards as to why you have a double-standard.

2. If you acknowledge that the system in inextricably tied to racial supremacy, and then acknowledge that there are many many many stakeholders who are tied to that system, what chance of meaningful reform do you think there is? The second reforms are put into the hands of people who don't want reforms to work they don't work. This is why racial incarceration is through the roof, it's why voting rights have been stripped from minority participants, it's why school segregation has gotten continuously worse for forty+ years. When the system is broken you cannot expect the system to fix itself.

The problem is, if you completely throw out that legal system, you are basically advocating anarchy, and closing all doors to reform save for violent conflict. If you start from the position that all US law is white supremacist and therefore invalid and must be abolished, then where do you go from there? Even any attempt to draft new laws from scratch would require an agreed-upon legal frame work and standards to work within. Determining who would draft those laws would require a political framework.

Buddy, the fact that this is complicated and difficult is not a reason to not do it. It's a reason why we should approach these questions with care and nuance, and strive to do it right. None of these things are defenses of a pre-existing structure which is fundamentally racist.

You can't just start over from scratch, however much you might want to. You start with what you have, which is the existing political and legal system, and then try to steer it in a better direction. Or you try to burn it all, and hope something better rises from the ashes. It seldom does.

It's really interesting that you go from "We should engage in a large scale decolonial project that involves derecognizing the United States" to "ANARCHY!" Again, this imagination of the only way order can be found via a racist imperial project is truly fascinating. It shows how deep into the soul it can etch itself.

If you support a solution that does not involve mass relocation, then obviously the terms genocide or ethnic cleansing would not need to apply. The "contradiction" came when I (accurately) described mass expulsion of the current population as something that would require a genocide to implement, and you (either through sloppiness or dishonesty) interpreted that as "TRR thinks returning the land to the natives is genocide". If your solution is to place those lands under new (First Nations) rule without forcibly removing the current residents, then that is not something I would characterize as genocide (albeit extremely problematic and practically difficult in numerous other ways).

When you have said that you would work to give Native tribes what they ask for, and some Native Tribes want their land back and the people who have stolen their land off of it, and then you say "that would require a genocide to implement" you are in fact, as I said, both taking what they want 'off the table' and declaring it 'a genocide'.


Do you need this drawn in pictures? I can do that. I will open up Paint and draw it for you.

To undo the reservation system is to recognize that US claim to land across most of the country is fundamentally broken. This means that recognizing the existence of states like the Dakotas, Minnesota, Colorado, Georgia, Alabama, etc. would then be 'deplorable'.

There are a number of possible solutions here, depending on what the parties concerned are all willing to accept. Including:

1. Renegotiate the treaties, paying to (fairly) purchase the land those states are on.

Many of these tribes don't want the fucking money. They want the land back. The case I cite is one where there's billions of dollars sitting in a trust fund, and the tribe has refused it. Because they want the fucking land back. There is no monetary price that undoes ethnic cleansing.

2. Alter current state boundaries (Congress and state legislatures can do this) to cede portions of those states back to the First Nations. Although I am deeply concerned about the precedent that allowing secession movements, or creating race-based states, would set.

It's really interesting to me how you immediately conflate undoing acts of racist land expropriation with overt racism. Like, that that's where your mind goes.

3. Hold a Constitutional Convention where everything, including the extent of the nation's borders, is on the table.

Why should an illegal nation have the right to determine how things are settled?

If a gang of burglars ransack your house why should they have a seat at the table in terms of what items of yours are returned? And how do you weigh their right to 'their' property to your right to what 'was' your property?

I acknowledge that permitting the outright separation of large parts of the country would be deeply problematic to me, not because I regard the land as rightfully America's, but because it would encourage other (ie white supremacist) secession movements, and because I am ultimately an advocate of global government, and see ethnic/nationalist secession movements as fundamentally moving the world in the wrong direction. So my conflict here is not between the American status quo and Native rights, but between two principles that are both deeply important to me: racial justice, and political globalization. I admit that I don't have a simple or easy answer to that.

The hoops that you jump through to try and say "I'm not racist, but I don't like giving back the land that was stolen as a concept" is really fucking fascinating.

I will never support race-based states in any form, because race-based states in a globalized world can only be maintained through acts of despotism.

Then how can you defend the United States? If you admit that the United States is a race based state in its origin, that it has viewed itself as a race based state throughout its history, and its claim to land, sovereignty, and power come from constructions of racial supremacy how can you support the United States?

An office can commit racist acts without the office being, by its nature, fundamentally racist. Upholding the reservation system has been a policy of the Presidency, but it is not a fundamental requirement of the Presidency.

The President is only President of these lands because these lands were taken. The states that legitimate and vote for the president are only states because the land was taken. If you give up the racism necessary for the seizure of the land then the presidency could not exist.

What you are describing when you refer to creating a fundamentally different nation within the same boundaries is essentially holding a Constitutional Convention and rewriting the Constitution from scratch, yes?

Sure? As part of the project.

But not a constitutional convention in the context of the US Constitution. Because, everything there is fruit from the poison tree.

And if the Sioux Nation demands that the US dissolve the states of the Dakotas and Minnesota, that the land be returned to their sovereignty, and that the US pay monetary damages for the time the land was out of their possession, what do you do?

I'd agree to the momentary damages, though I suspect that the scale would require them to be paid over time rather than in a single sum.

I'd try to negotiate an alternative compromise on dissolving three states. Failing that, I suppose the only lawful way to move forward on the issue would be a Constitutional convention.

So if they want the land back, flat out, you wouldn't give it to them?

[Straha]

Because when I suggest that anti-American so-called progressives might defend Trump on certain issues, or defend his legitimacy as President, because he makes American look bad, you immediately try to turn it around and say that by the same reasoning, I must just hate him because he makes American look bad, rather than, you know, because he's an absolutely abhorrent piece of shit who routinely personifies the worst of humanity in his actions and words.

Fascinating. You ascribe depth of personality to those you disagree with while denying yourself that in favor of a Panglossian simplicity. Just, utterly, fascinating...

[MarxII]

I'll toss a question to Straha, out of curiosity and not really intended to address the philosophical points at issue:

How would you see this fundamental problem addressed, and how likely or attainable do you think that solution to be?

[Elheru Aran]

I'll toss a question to Straha, out of curiosity and not really intended to address the philosophical points at issue:

How would you see this fundamental problem addressed, and how likely or attainable do you think that solution to be?

It might help to specify -which- fundamental problem. Helpful to me anyway because I don't know whether you're referring to his debate with TRR, the issue of white colonization of North America, or white supremacy in the US...

[MarxII]

Fair enough. I was referring more to the issue of white colonization of North America, which, if I've followed the exchange properly (by no means a guarantee) seems to be at the heart of the other two.

Again assuming I haven't missed anything, there seems to be the idea that existence of the United States is a wrong in need of righting, and that this can only be brought about in a context entirely outside the US Constitution.