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

[Darth Yan]

Consideting it's been a discussion of the US' origins as a white supremacist state aided by ongoing genocidal expansion, why do other countries need to be addressed at all, except to make some people feel better?

I mean, I think we can all agree that any like atrocities in any other nation's history don't absolve the United States in the slightest. But given that the discussion rises to levels of clearly international significance, such as the dissolution or fundamental reconfiguration of the United States, it doesn't strike me as unreasonable to make some international comparison.

Exactly. No ones calling for the abolition of Brazil even though it also engages in atrocities. It’s like only the USA is evil enough to warrant being disbanded.

[Effie]

It is. But we also have the potential to be egalitarian and accepting. Straha seems to think we can only ever be racist fucks and that is BULLSHIT

That doesn't seem to be a fair summary of his position.

No it’s exactly what he’s saying. As broom pointed out Brazil still regularly brutalizes the natives, far more than what we do to our natives. Yet you don’t see straha condemning that.

Straha also has not, in his posts in this thread about a news event in the United States concerning racism in the United States, condemned the Rohingya genocide, violence and prejudice against the Chinese diaspora in Southeast Asia, discrimination against Nigerian immigrants in South Africa, antiziganism, or settler colonialism in Siberia and North Asia either. Shocking, that.

Consideting it's been a discussion of the US' origins as a white supremacist state aided by ongoing genocidal expansion, why do other countries need to be addressed at all, except to make some people feel better?

I mean, I think we can all agree that any like atrocities in any other nation's history don't absolve the United States in the slightest. But given that the discussion rises to levels of clearly international significance, such as the dissolution or fundamental reconfiguration of the United States, it doesn't strike me as unreasonable to make some international comparison.

So if there is racism anywhere, action to eliminate structural racism within the United States entirely is foreclosed because that would be unfair? Like, here's the thing. If the United States was transformed to no longer be so deeply embedded with racism, that would still leave a polity with vast sources of power and an interest in encouraging further antiracism globally, which would not be the case if a similar transformation began in say, Uruguay.

[Gandalf]

Consideting it's been a discussion of the US' origins as a white supremacist state aided by ongoing genocidal expansion, why do other countries need to be addressed at all, except to make some people feel better?

I mean, I think we can all agree that any like atrocities in any other nation's history don't absolve the United States in the slightest. But given that the discussion rises to levels of clearly international significance, such as the dissolution or fundamental reconfiguration of the United States, it doesn't strike me as unreasonable to make some international comparison.

Exactly. No ones calling for the abolition of Brazil even though it also engages in atrocities.

Considering it's a thread about US politics, which has expanded to cover US history, why should it address Brazil? Should threads about the German economy during the Nazi period also address taxation in the Meiji era Diet?

It’s like only the USA is evil enough to warrant being disbanded.

... so you concede that it should be disbanded?

[Darth Yan]

Don’t twist my words. I’m saying that if straha were consistent he’d advocate other nations be disbanded too

[loomer]

You seem to have no problem with vast oversimplifications and word twisting yourself, Yan.

[Straha]

No, this was NOT about starting a pissing contest regarding who was worse or not. I'm inquiring whether you'd hold every nation in the Western Hemisphere to the same standards and penalties or just the English-speaking ones.

Yes. Again, I'm not sure what your point is viz-a-viz this conversation? Nobody is denying that we should judge other nations and polities for what they've done, the question here is in the context of American racism, its founding, and whether the current wave of discourse really represents a radical break from the American national project.

A violent revolution gets you off the hook for genocide?

Sometimes. For instance, I think the Haitian revolution represented a fundamental break with the Settler-Colonial regime. There are other revolutions of varying effectiveness (Viva Zapata!) that do similar things.

You seem to be employing a double-standard here, where the US and Canada are held to be evils that need to be destroyed and returned to the surviving natives but Latin America is OK the way it is, never mind that those nations are also built on blood and genocide and also full of racism and bigotry. Just look at Brazil, the way groups of Natives in the Amazon are murdered for the territory even today with little or not consequences to the perpetrators. The ancestors of people of African ancestry in Latin America didn't volunteer to leave Africa, they were captured and sold as slaves. Natives where wiped out and where they weren't wiped out efforts were made to destroy their culture and language. Or does it not count somehow, because they aren't the US?

Yeah, nowhere did I make the claim that Latin America is OK the way it is. My claims were two fold:

A. That the US system of land seizure, dislocation, and then the creation of concentration camps via the reservation system is one of its own devising that was modeled by Canada and Australia. This means that while we can draw pretty direct comparisons between those three countries drawing comparisons between the US and the rest of the Western Hemisphere requires a lot more tact and nuance.

B. That there have been decolonial projects and revolutions in much of Latin America and the Caribbean that forefront Native experiences. Passing judgment on their various efficacies is well beyond the scope of this thread. What I think is useful is that none of the countries you mention consider the abuses towards Natives to be a past-tense problem in terms of modern domestic politics, which is pointedly not the case when it comes to the United States.

And how successful have those revolutions been? How many have left Venezuela just this year because the place collapsed politically, financially, and infrastructurally?

Again, it's interesting to me that the Settler-Colonial narrative of the alternative to its order is despotism and chaos.

The entire West is built on the suffering of millions, with institutional bigotry of all sorts, and why is it surprising that the current regimes are ugly and evil? I'm just puzzled as to why you're singling out one nation among dozens as somehow exceptional in this regard when in fact these abuses were universal during the colonial period up through the modern day.

Because this is a thread about the United States and US Politics. I'm genuinely baffled by what you think the relevance of other nations' actions is towards the question of "Is the United States fundamentally racist?"

[Straha]

Wow. Did not know either of those. Both are reprehensible and that they lasted as long as they did is disturbing. But they were abolished

1. Yikes.

2. Before this conversation can advance you need to give the brightline for what you think is historical. The process Effie talks about effected up to half of Native women of Child-bearing age in the care of the IHS. Many to most of those women are still alive, and the point was to vastly reduce the number of native people around today to benefit the US government without the consent, or even consultation, of the women involved. When the victims are still alive and we are living in the era, and with the consequences, that was the target of these actions, how is this historical?

Don’t twist my words. I’m saying that if straha were consistent he’d advocate other nations be disbanded too

Who says I don't? And how is that relevant to the discussion at hand?

[Darth Yan]

No, this was NOT about starting a pissing contest regarding who was worse or not. I'm inquiring whether you'd hold every nation in the Western Hemisphere to the same standards and penalties or just the English-speaking ones.

Yes. Again, I'm not sure what your point is viz-a-viz this conversation? Nobody is denying that we should judge other nations and polities for what they've done, the question here is in the context of American racism, its founding, and whether the current wave of discourse really represents a radical break from the American national project.

A violent revolution gets you off the hook for genocide?

Sometimes. For instance, I think the Haitian revolution represented a fundamental break with the Settler-Colonial regime. There are other revolutions of varying effectiveness (Viva Zapata!) that do similar things.

You seem to be employing a double-standard here, where the US and Canada are held to be evils that need to be destroyed and returned to the surviving natives but Latin America is OK the way it is, never mind that those nations are also built on blood and genocide and also full of racism and bigotry. Just look at Brazil, the way groups of Natives in the Amazon are murdered for the territory even today with little or not consequences to the perpetrators. The ancestors of people of African ancestry in Latin America didn't volunteer to leave Africa, they were captured and sold as slaves. Natives where wiped out and where they weren't wiped out efforts were made to destroy their culture and language. Or does it not count somehow, because they aren't the US?

Yeah, nowhere did I make the claim that Latin America is OK the way it is. My claims were two fold:

A. That the US system of land seizure, dislocation, and then the creation of concentration camps via the reservation system is one of its own devising that was modeled by Canada and Australia. This means that while we can draw pretty direct comparisons between those three countries drawing comparisons between the US and the rest of the Western Hemisphere requires a lot more tact and nuance.

B. That there have been decolonial projects and revolutions in much of Latin America and the Caribbean that forefront Native experiences. Passing judgment on their various efficacies is well beyond the scope of this thread. What I think is useful is that none of the countries you mention consider the abuses towards Natives to be a past-tense problem in terms of modern domestic politics, which is pointedly not the case when it comes to the United States.

And how successful have those revolutions been? How many have left Venezuela just this year because the place collapsed politically, financially, and infrastructurally?

Again, it's interesting to me that the Settler-Colonial narrative of the alternative to its order is despotism and chaos.

The entire West is built on the suffering of millions, with institutional bigotry of all sorts, and why is it surprising that the current regimes are ugly and evil? I'm just puzzled as to why you're singling out one nation among dozens as somehow exceptional in this regard when in fact these abuses were universal during the colonial period up through the modern day.

Because this is a thread about the United States and US Politics. I'm genuinely baffled by what you think the relevance of other nations' actions is towards the question of "Is the United States fundamentally racist?"

So the mass murder of haiti’s Whites was okay?

Also you implied the us was uniquely evil. In that regards bringing up the crimes of other nations is entirely fair.

[Effie]

No, this was NOT about starting a pissing contest regarding who was worse or not. I'm inquiring whether you'd hold every nation in the Western Hemisphere to the same standards and penalties or just the English-speaking ones.

Yes. Again, I'm not sure what your point is viz-a-viz this conversation? Nobody is denying that we should judge other nations and polities for what they've done, the question here is in the context of American racism, its founding, and whether the current wave of discourse really represents a radical break from the American national project.

A violent revolution gets you off the hook for genocide?

Sometimes. For instance, I think the Haitian revolution represented a fundamental break with the Settler-Colonial regime. There are other revolutions of varying effectiveness (Viva Zapata!) that do similar things.

You seem to be employing a double-standard here, where the US and Canada are held to be evils that need to be destroyed and returned to the surviving natives but Latin America is OK the way it is, never mind that those nations are also built on blood and genocide and also full of racism and bigotry. Just look at Brazil, the way groups of Natives in the Amazon are murdered for the territory even today with little or not consequences to the perpetrators. The ancestors of people of African ancestry in Latin America didn't volunteer to leave Africa, they were captured and sold as slaves. Natives where wiped out and where they weren't wiped out efforts were made to destroy their culture and language. Or does it not count somehow, because they aren't the US?

Yeah, nowhere did I make the claim that Latin America is OK the way it is. My claims were two fold:

A. That the US system of land seizure, dislocation, and then the creation of concentration camps via the reservation system is one of its own devising that was modeled by Canada and Australia. This means that while we can draw pretty direct comparisons between those three countries drawing comparisons between the US and the rest of the Western Hemisphere requires a lot more tact and nuance.

B. That there have been decolonial projects and revolutions in much of Latin America and the Caribbean that forefront Native experiences. Passing judgment on their various efficacies is well beyond the scope of this thread. What I think is useful is that none of the countries you mention consider the abuses towards Natives to be a past-tense problem in terms of modern domestic politics, which is pointedly not the case when it comes to the United States.

And how successful have those revolutions been? How many have left Venezuela just this year because the place collapsed politically, financially, and infrastructurally?

Again, it's interesting to me that the Settler-Colonial narrative of the alternative to its order is despotism and chaos.

The entire West is built on the suffering of millions, with institutional bigotry of all sorts, and why is it surprising that the current regimes are ugly and evil? I'm just puzzled as to why you're singling out one nation among dozens as somehow exceptional in this regard when in fact these abuses were universal during the colonial period up through the modern day.

Because this is a thread about the United States and US Politics. I'm genuinely baffled by what you think the relevance of other nations' actions is towards the question of "Is the United States fundamentally racist?"

So the mass murder of haiti’s Whites was okay?

Also you implied the us was uniquely evil. In that regards bringing up the crimes of other nations is entirely fair.

What mass murder of Haiti's whites?

[Broomstick]

So if there is racism anywhere, action to eliminate structural racism within the United States entirely is foreclosed because that would be unfair?

No.

The question is whether or not that standard would be applied to other countries. It's not asking whether or not it's a fair standard, or a practical standard, only if it would be consistently applied to everyone. It's actually a very simple question and it says something they people keep trying to read more into it than actually exists.

Sometimes. For instance, I think the Haitian revolution represented a fundamental break with the Settler-Colonial regime.

I don't get why a revolution, even "a fundamental break with the Settler-Colonial regime", justifies the occupation of stolen land. Actually, Haiti is twice stolen - once from the natives (which are believed extinct except to the extent they have contributed a small amount of DNA to Haiti's population) then again from the French. Do two wrongs make a right? Does a second wrong erase the first? If the natives being extinct makes it OK to occupy their land then does the American "regime" have legitimate claims to land they occupied after the prior occupants had died out from disease (brought to the New World by the Spanish and ripping through the natives before the English-speaking colonies got rolling)?

A. That the US system of land seizure, dislocation, and then the creation of concentration camps via the reservation system is one of its own devising that was modeled by Canada and Australia.

More accurately, modeled by the UK in its colonies of Canada and Australia which were unquestionably under British control for an extensive period post-US revolution. Hell, the British turned Australia into a penal colony/concentration camp for its own criminals. While the post-Empire governments of Canada and Australia were not nice guys you shouldn't let the UK off the hook for setting up some of the bullshit in the first place.

This means that while we can draw pretty direct comparisons between those three countries drawing comparisons between the US and the rest of the Western Hemisphere requires a lot more tact and nuance.

Why does it require more "tact and nuance"?

B. That there have been decolonial projects and revolutions in much of Latin America and the Caribbean that forefront Native experiences. Passing judgment on their various efficacies is well beyond the scope of this thread. What I think is useful is that none of the countries you mention consider the abuses towards Natives to be a past-tense problem in terms of modern domestic politics, which is pointedly not the case when it comes to the United States.

I'm not sure why you think abuses towards the Natives in the US is considered "past tense", unless you're just going by the Trumpists who while extremely vocal and active are arguably NOT a majority of the US. Granted there are many more of them than I'd prefer.

And how successful have those revolutions been? How many have left Venezuela just this year because the place collapsed politically, financially, and infrastructurally?

Again, it's interesting to me that the Settler-Colonial narrative of the alternative to its order is despotism and chaos.

Are you disputing that, at this point in time, Venezuela is in deep shit, self-inflicted by mis-governance?

I did not say the only alternative was "despotism and chaos", but pretty clearly it is one possible alternative and not necessarily better than what came before.

Because this is a thread about the United States and US Politics. I'm genuinely baffled by what you think the relevance of other nations' actions is towards the question of "Is the United States fundamentally racist?"

"The United State is founded on and fundamentally racist" is a question? How can that be a question and not a statement to someone who has studied history?

What mass murder of Haiti's whites?

Fair question.

To start, the 1804 Haitian massacre, death toll 3,000 to 5,000. I don't want to divert this thread into a large discussion of the massacre, so follow the link if you're interested in learning more.

[Effie]

So if there is racism anywhere, action to eliminate structural racism within the United States entirely is foreclosed because that would be unfair?

No.

The question is whether or not that standard would be applied to other countries. It's not asking whether or not it's a fair standard, or a practical standard, only if it would be consistently applied to everyone. It's actually a very simple question and it says something they people keep trying to read more into it than actually exists.

The answer is no. Radical left-wing anti-racists want to apply this standard inconsistently, allowing everyone other than Americans to be racist and only putting the burden of human decency on Americans to bear.

Come the fuck on, though.

What mass murder of Haiti's whites?

Fair question.

To start, the 1804 Haitian massacre, death toll 3,000 to 5,000. I don't want to divert this thread into a large discussion of the massacre, so follow the link if you're interested in learning more.

So, uh, you're taking a massacre of specifically French people, which specifically excluded white British, American, and Polish people and which did not set off any kind of expulsion of said people, as a massacre of white people generally? Even in paranoid fantasies black people still aren't allowed to be successful at something, it seems.

[Darth Yan]

Dessalines repeatedly demonized white people anf still committed mass genocide of men women and children. It was still an atrocity with no justification. Straha spoke positively of the revolution, as if the massacre of 3-5000 people didn’t matter

[Broomstick]

To start, the 1804 Haitian massacre, death toll 3,000 to 5,000. I don't want to divert this thread into a large discussion of the massacre, so follow the link if you're interested in learning more.

So, uh, you're taking a massacre of specifically French people, which specifically excluded white British, American, and Polish people and which did not set off any kind of expulsion of said people, as a massacre of white people generally? Even in paranoid fantasies black people still aren't allowed to be successful at something, it seems.

The vast majority of white people in Haiti at the time were of French origin, and if you couldn't identify yourself pretty damn quick as some other category of "white person" you'd be assumed French and killed. Or do you think the marching revolutionaries carefully checked peoples' ID's prior to killing them?

I provided an example of a massacre of "white people", which you reject because apparently it was TOO specific. So yeah, they got it right. Which scared the living fuck out of white people in slave-holding societies world-wide at the time.

I'll also point out that despite your claim about "paranoid fantasies" the Haitian revolution WAS successful and Haiti is still an independent, sovereign nation at this point.

[Effie]

Dessalines repeatedly demonized white people anf still committed mass genocide of men women and children. It was still an atrocity with no justification. Straha spoke positively of the revolution, as if the massacre of 3-5000 people didn’t matter

"Mass genocide"? Is that different from the regular type?

I mean, more than 200,000 Haitians died fighting againat slavery and for independence. The final phase of the war featured genocidal action by the French. I can shed a single tear for those few thousand. With a month's notice.

As for "demonizing white people", I have made enough mayonnaise jokes to count as doing that myself.

To start, the 1804 Haitian massacre, death toll 3,000 to 5,000. I don't want to divert this thread into a large discussion of the massacre, so follow the link if you're interested in learning more.

So, uh, you're taking a massacre of specifically French people, which specifically excluded white British, American, and Polish people and which did not set off any kind of expulsion of said people, as a massacre of white people generally? Even in paranoid fantasies black people still aren't allowed to be successful at something, it seems.

The vast majority of white people in Haiti at the time were of French origin, and if you couldn't identify yourself pretty damn quick as some other category of "white person" you'd be assumed French and killed. Or do you think the marching revolutionaries carefully checked peoples' ID's prior to killing them?

I provided an example of a massacre of "white people", which you reject because apparently it was TOO specific. So yeah, they got it right. Which scared the living fuck out of white people in slave-holding societies world-wide at the time.

I'll also point out that despite your claim about "paranoid fantasies" the Haitian revolution WAS successful and Haiti is still an independent, sovereign nation at this point.

It was a massacre of "white people" in the same way that Allied strategic bombing in WW2 was a massacre of "white people". Hypothetically true but totally and utterly misleading, as is your contention that British and American merchants and surrendered Polish conscripts were included in the massacre.

The "paranoid fantasies" line was relating to your implicit insistence that Dessalines wanted to butcher white people because of their whiteness.

[Darth Yan]

Dessaline’s own words make it very clear that he despised white people and wanted them dead for THAT reason

[Effie]

Dessaline’s own words make it very clear that he despised white people and wanted them dead for THAT reason

Which is why he massacred British and American traders, and why all the surrendered Polish conscripts were murdered too, rather than being accepted as Haitians?

[Darth Yan]

Those groups were so small the white community was decimated. And Dessalines and his fellows still made numerous anti white comments. In practice it was anti white.

Why are you apologizing for that act of violence? Was it okay that 3-5000 people were killed because they were former colonialists?

[MarxII]

I mean, I think we can all agree that any like atrocities in any other nation's history don't absolve the United States in the slightest. But given that the discussion rises to levels of clearly international significance, such as the dissolution or fundamental reconfiguration of the United States, it doesn't strike me as unreasonable to make some international comparison.

So if there is racism anywhere, action to eliminate structural racism within the United States entirely is foreclosed because that would be unfair?

Well, no. I didn't say that. That's not a reasonable interpretation of what I said.

Like, here's the thing. If the United States was transformed to no longer be so deeply embedded with racism, that would still leave a polity with vast sources of power and an interest in encouraging further antiracism globally, which would not be the case if a similar transformation began in say, Uruguay.

Can you expand on this a little? I think I get the gist, but I'd like to be sure, and it's also an interesting notion in the context of the larger conversation.

[Darth Yan]

Personally I find that the mere idea of considering myself white automatically meaning that I’m bigoted and oppressing black people to be idiotic.

Yes white privilege exists. Yes I have benefitted from it. Yes I have had to police my thoughts to squelch racist thoughts. Yes a lot of white people are in denial about how they benefitted from that system. But what Straha is proposing is basically eye for an eye. That since white people stole the land centuries ago it’s ok to take the current inhabitants and forcibly expel them from their homes.

When Nelson Mandela became President of South Africa he didn’t just forcibly take the land of the white farmers. He had more than enough reason but he realized that just doing so would risk tearing the nation apart when they needed to heal. To resolve a situation takes time, patience and thought.

Effie and Straha seem to think two wrongs make a right and that it’s okay to tear everything down in fire and blood

[loomer]

You keep returning to the idea that moderate resettlement on negotiated treaty grounds would necessarily be inequitable, violent, and imposed from the outside.

[Darth Yan]

As Romulan pointed out, there are a lot of questions.

That's the problem, yeah. There are millions of people living their, who may be living on stolen property, but they are still people and still have to live. Do you expel them by force (presuming it were possible to do so without a massive civil war that Straha's side would definitely not win)? If so, what country will take them all in? Do you allow them to remain, but disenfranchise them to ensure that the government of the new nation remains First Nations controlled? These are not easy questions.

A terrible crime was committed. It should not be legitmized. But we can't simply turn the clock back and erase its effects, nor can we answer one atrocity with another.

Straha is not willing to answer any of these questions when pointed out to him. What if the white people don't WANT to be resettled? What if resettling would do massive damage to infrastructure? It's just like that thread a year ago when he defended that idiot Martinez when he made a newspaper article saying white people are evil and downplayed how Martinez's points boiled down to "white people are inherently evil". He implied that POC would be objectively right in seeking vengeance, ignoring that most of them realize whites didn't ask to be born with a boot stamping on others.

Both Straha and Effie shamelessly ignored that after the Haitian Revolution Dessalines butchered almost the entire white population on Haiti, even those Whites who had been sympathetic to the Black cause (and while I understand that it was in response to atrocities committed by the French that doesn't change that they still committed mass murder against women and children). In fact Effie seemed to think it was justified.

Like it or not once enough time has passed it's impossible to role back the clock. That's why Netenyahu's settlements are so dangerous. He knows that if he does it enough he'll make a two state solution impossible, which will allow him to claim all the lebensraum he wants.

[Rogue 9]

You keep returning to the idea that moderate resettlement on negotiated treaty grounds would necessarily be inequitable, violent, and imposed from the outside.

That's not at all what Straha is proposing, though. Moderate resettlement on negotiated treaty grounds /= the dissolution of the United States. There's three ways to do that if one bars reform through the Constitution (which is, lest we forget, fruit of the poison tree). One, mass removal. Straha has said he doesn't want to do that. That leaves forming some sort of republic in which the natives do not even come close to a plurality, which won't get what he wants, or an ethnically based despotism (or multiples thereof) with three hundred million disenfranchised inhabitants, which really won't get what he wants.

The United States has deeply entrenched racism, it's true. But it's cultural, not mandated by the Constitution as amended. To get any sort of settlement with the native nations, the culture must be changed. The Constitution elevates treaties to the supreme law of the land and mandates equal protection of the laws; that makes it a powerful tool for finally enforcing treaty obligations. Shred it without changing the culture, and those treaty obligations don't exist since one of the parties to them (the United States) ceases to exist and the dominant culture will continue to not cede ground to the native tribes. It likely wouldn't be long before Cliven Bundy and his fellow travelers started gobbling up what little is left; they've already done it once and without the FBI to stop them they'd have just kept at it.

[loomer]

You keep returning to the idea that moderate resettlement on negotiated treaty grounds would necessarily be inequitable, violent, and imposed from the outside.

That's not at all what Straha is proposing, though. Moderate resettlement on negotiated treaty grounds /= the dissolution of the United States. There's three ways to do that if one bars reform through the Constitution (which is, lest we forget, fruit of the poison tree). One, mass removal. Straha has said he doesn't want to do that. That leaves forming some sort of republic in which the natives do not even come close to a plurality, which won't get what he wants, or an ethnically based despotism (or multiples thereof) with three hundred million disenfranchised inhabitants, which really won't get what he wants.

It's precisely what's being proposed, though. The dissolution of the United States is a part of the treaty process that would create the new nations/neo-US, and the resettlements would take place as a consequence of this. As you yourself concede, Straha is opposed to mass removal - the argument for resettling settlers is not about mass removals by force. It is specifically about necessary resettling in the context of post-US equitable restoration of Indigenous sovereignty and land.

[Rogue 9]

You keep returning to the idea that moderate resettlement on negotiated treaty grounds would necessarily be inequitable, violent, and imposed from the outside.

That's not at all what Straha is proposing, though. Moderate resettlement on negotiated treaty grounds /= the dissolution of the United States. There's three ways to do that if one bars reform through the Constitution (which is, lest we forget, fruit of the poison tree). One, mass removal. Straha has said he doesn't want to do that. That leaves forming some sort of republic in which the natives do not even come close to a plurality, which won't get what he wants, or an ethnically based despotism (or multiples thereof) with three hundred million disenfranchised inhabitants, which really won't get what he wants.

It's precisely what's being proposed, though. The dissolution of the United States is a part of the treaty process that would create the new nations/neo-US, and the resettlements would take place as a consequence of this. As you yourself concede, Straha is opposed to mass removal - the argument for resettling settlers is not about mass removals by force. It is specifically about necessary resettling in the context of post-US equitable restoration of Indigenous sovereignty and land.

Okay, so in this neo-US, how do you get the settler-descended majority to vote themselves out of house and home? Or, if you do not afford them a voice in the matter and simply proceed with expulsions, how do you deal with the fact that the segment of the population in the West that would be most in need of resettlement is particularly awash in firearms and an apparent willingness to use them against the federal government, which doesn't speak of unwillingness to use them against a weaker entity that they perceive as a threat or obstacle?

[loomer]

That's not at all what Straha is proposing, though. Moderate resettlement on negotiated treaty grounds /= the dissolution of the United States. There's three ways to do that if one bars reform through the Constitution (which is, lest we forget, fruit of the poison tree). One, mass removal. Straha has said he doesn't want to do that. That leaves forming some sort of republic in which the natives do not even come close to a plurality, which won't get what he wants, or an ethnically based despotism (or multiples thereof) with three hundred million disenfranchised inhabitants, which really won't get what he wants.

It's precisely what's being proposed, though. The dissolution of the United States is a part of the treaty process that would create the new nations/neo-US, and the resettlements would take place as a consequence of this. As you yourself concede, Straha is opposed to mass removal - the argument for resettling settlers is not about mass removals by force. It is specifically about necessary resettling in the context of post-US equitable restoration of Indigenous sovereignty and land.

Okay, so in this neo-US, how do you get the settler-descended majority to vote themselves out of house and home? Or, if you do not afford them a voice in the matter and simply proceed with expulsions, how do you deal with the fact that the segment of the population in the West that would be most in need of resettlement is particularly awash in firearms and an apparent willingness to use them against the federal government, which doesn't speak of unwillingness to use them against a weaker entity that they perceive as a threat or obstacle?

We educate them that what is being proposed is not to 'vote themselves out of house and home'. As Straha would say, it's interesting that you focus on the angle of total disposession when what is proposed both by him and by all but the extreme end of Indigenous sovereignty movements is nothing of the sort. What is proposed is an equitable resettlement, so it's not 'out of house and home' but 'into a different house and home', on a relatively limited scale, in certain areas where necessary to return traditionally occupied lands or protect sacred sites. This ties in to what I first posted: Those against this idea continually return to the idea resettlement must be inequitable, violent, and imposed from the outside. In one post you have returned to all three.

For those still unwilling to be resettled, you simply exercise the legal remedies available. It is no different to compulsory acquisition under eminent domain principles, which is well settled under the law as a valid exercise of government power. Those who would resist violently are no different than those who would resist violently under the present system - why are we to give them special consideration when it is a matter of an equitable resettlement of colonized territory?