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

[Rogue 9]

None of which requires the dissolution of the United States, and in fact dissolving the government makes it harder rather than easier.

[loomer]

None of which requires the dissolution of the United States, and in fact dissolving the government makes it harder rather than easier.

In which case, the treaties may be negotiated with the United States as is. However, the fundamental result would be so different that, like South Africa, it would cease to be the same nation.

[Darth Yan]

And how do you do that? People don't like to leave their homes. In Gaza and the West bank there are still abandoned villages the palestinians can return too (a well as the main body). The US doesn't have that.


And Straha and Effie have still downplayed the mass killing Dessalines carried out. That's not cool.

[loomer]

And how do you do that? People don't like to leave their homes. In Gaza and the West bank there are still abandoned villages the palestinians can return too (a well as the main body). The US doesn't have that.


And Straha and Effie have still downplayed the mass killing Dessalines carried out. That's not cool.

By giving them new homes on an equitable basis, backed by the force of law. No different to compulsory acquisition, just on a larger scale.

As to the second point, so what? I'm not talking about Dessalines, never have. I speak only to the issue of resettlement and how it does not, in fact, have to be an unequitable proposition.

[Gandalf]

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

What words have I twisted? Quotes please.

Also, why are you just posting about Haiti? Why aren't you addressing other countries?

[Straha]

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)?

Few things:

1. Nobody is saying that the Haitian Revolution undoes the violent seizure of the land. What is being said is that an uprising of sub-alterns which throws out (indeed, eradicates) the settler-colonial presence represents a new and distinct national entity from the one that preceded it. One that does not inherit the guilt of the seizure of the land. This doesn't mean that continued possession of stolen land is just, just that there is no longer a continuity with pre-existing governments.

2. There was a direct policy of inter-breeding natives with Black slaves in Haiti. So, yes. I do think there's a legitimacy to their claim to the land and a legitimacy to their to the land. I hope no one here thinks that the Settler-Colonist slave-holders have a more respectable claim than theirs.

3. You do, though, bring perhaps one of the thorniest issues viz-a-viz decolonization. Which is, how do you reconcile the claim of the Native with regard to sovereignty and land with the figure of the displaced Black person who has been natally alienated from their ancestor's homeland, but is always cast as an outsider in both the Settler-Colonial state and in the Native imagining of the return of their land. This is, to put it mildly, incredibly complicated and thorny. I think Frank Wilderson's Red, White, and Black is a really interesting discussion on this, as are the afro-pessimist thinkers as a whole. I brushed on this earlier in the thread, and if we want to go deeper into this question we absolutely can. What I think is incontrovertible, though, is that A. a decolonization effort that recognizes the illegitimacy of the Settler-Colonial State is a good thing in this regard, and B. that the actions of the Haitian Revolution in overthrowing their French Masters would fit into a decolonial strategy.

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.

Yeah, the inclusion of the UK as a direct perpetrator of those acts is fair.

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"?

Because the processes of dispossession, conquest, and control were vastly different. And were, indeed, different from section to section of Latin America and the Caribbean. To speak overly broadly risks erasing how specific cultures were attacked (or, by contrast, were able to develop survival strategies) in a way that hurts our understanding of the past and the ability to develop political strategies going forward.

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.

...

Have you been reading the rest of the thread?

I don't consider them past tense.

That's part of the core dispute of this thread. Multiple posters, notably Darth Yan and TRR, have explicitly called these actions historical and have explicitly said that these actions "were abolished", in the past, or "no longer active." This discourse is not out of line with the mainstream approach to this discourse as taught in high schools or when people approach these questions as a matter of politics.

And if you're going to say that only Trumpists think that they are past-tense. Well, then I think TRR is probably going to have some words for you.

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

Do I dispute that the suffering in a country which has suffered under decades of American led sanctions regimes, political isolation, and was recently the subject of an international plot at a coup attempt is "self-inflicted"? Yes. Yes I do.

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.

Then why is this alternative, held in abstract, useful?

If you're going to be the one who tries to go deep on "Well, Straha, why don't you talk about Brazil?" I think it's fair that you defend why you cherry-pick Venezuela, and Venezuela alone, as the alternative.

[Straha]

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.

1. Effie is dealing pretty well with how Whites in practice didn't include Foreigners, American merchants, German Settlers, former soldiers who had defected, and even French folk who had aided the revolution. I'm not going to step in their debate on this.

2. Again, you bring up 'evil' which is a term I have never brought up and pointedly rebuked.

3. It's fascinating to me that the example you go to is the same one the Southern Slaveholders and the Confederacy used to defend the continuation of Slavery as a matter of self-defense and necessity. Really, the fact that your identity immediately goes to the well-being of the oppressors and not the oppressed speaks volumes, as does your contempt for justice from the sub-altern. Like, do you think it was wrong for Israel to have hung Eichmann?

4. Also interesting to me is the tension between this and your claims that the matters being discussed were historical. If the atrocities committed against Native Americans truly were historical, as you claim, and out-of-mind of Natives than there should be no fear of mass retributory violence and this entire discussion is esoteric to the discussion of equitable land redistribution and/or the nature and scope of present day racism in the United States. But if they aren't historical, and the resentment still simmers then, yes, the Settler-Colonial state is necessary to preserve the privileged position of white folk who are actively complicit in large scale violence against angry sub-alterns. Pick your lane and stick to it.

5. Related to that, you've twice scurried away from the direct question: What's your brightline for when a genocide becomes historical? What's the answer?

[Darth Yan]

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.

1. Effie is dealing pretty well with how Whites in practice didn't include Foreigners, American merchants, German Settlers, former soldiers who had defected, and even French folk who had aided the revolution. I'm not going to step in their debate on this.

2. Again, you bring up 'evil' which is a term I have never brought up and pointedly rebuked.

3. It's fascinating to me that the example you go to is the same one the Southern Slaveholders and the Confederacy used to defend the continuation of Slavery as a matter of self-defense and necessity. Really, the fact that your identity immediately goes to the well-being of the oppressors and not the oppressed speaks volumes, as does your contempt for justice from the sub-altern. Like, do you think it was wrong for Israel to have hung Eichmann?

4. Also interesting to me is the tension between this and your claims that the matters being discussed were historical. If the atrocities committed against Native Americans truly were historical, as you claim, and out-of-mind of Natives than there should be no fear of mass retributory violence and this entire discussion is esoteric to the discussion of equitable land redistribution and/or the nature and scope of present day racism in the United States. But if they aren't historical, and the resentment still simmers then, yes, the Settler-Colonial state is necessary to preserve the privileged position of white folk who are actively complicit in large scale violence against angry sub-alterns. Pick your lane and stick to it.

5. Related to that, you've twice scurried away from the direct question: What's your brightline for when a genocide becomes historical? What's the answer?

1.) Except they DID butcher french folk who aided the revolution. In any case how is killing children ok?

2.) Nice try but you were certainly implying it. You kept saying the US needed to be dissolved for the sake of justice; that has loaded overtones no matter how you spin it.

3.) Don't be cute. I'm well aware that Haiti was an exception and provoked by YEARS of abuse and cruelty (especially during the war of independence.) However that doesn't change that a.) Women and children were still slaughtered like cattle and that b.) the justification was a desire to "keep new frenchmen from being born." (i.e. the same logic the germans used to justify killing Jews). If they had just tried the people directly involved in the regime I wouldn't be bothered. If they had merely forcibly sent the white people away....it would have been dickish maybe but relatively humane and one could argue there was justice in those acts. Killing almost every man woman and child of french descent is NOT justice and that you seem to think it is really says a lot. In short I DO believe the subaltern is entitled to justice. I do not believe that mass murder is justice, whereas you seem to think it is.

4.) As far as I see it after a generation it becomes historical. You seem to honestly think White people are going "hee hee hee let's fuck over native americans hee hee hee". You also seem to think it would be justified for POC to kill civilians en masse. Like it or not the ink has dried. Other people live there now, and relocating them would require not only willpower but resources. Again it's why the Jewish Settlements in the West Bank are a major issue. In practice they won't be removed.

5.) In my mind it becomes historical a generation or so after the policies involving genocide have ended. We are no longer sterilizing natives or trying to suppress their culture. Therefore we are not actively practicing genocide against them. The effects can linger but the genocide itself is over.


In summation it's impossible to redistribute land on the scale that you desire in the way you desire. You're constant spouting that "white" is inherently racist also says a lot.

I've answered your questions. Now answer mine.

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.

[Effie]

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.

1. Effie is dealing pretty well with how Whites in practice didn't include Foreigners, American merchants, German Settlers, former soldiers who had defected, and even French folk who had aided the revolution. I'm not going to step in their debate on this.

2. Again, you bring up 'evil' which is a term I have never brought up and pointedly rebuked.

3. It's fascinating to me that the example you go to is the same one the Southern Slaveholders and the Confederacy used to defend the continuation of Slavery as a matter of self-defense and necessity. Really, the fact that your identity immediately goes to the well-being of the oppressors and not the oppressed speaks volumes, as does your contempt for justice from the sub-altern. Like, do you think it was wrong for Israel to have hung Eichmann?

4. Also interesting to me is the tension between this and your claims that the matters being discussed were historical. If the atrocities committed against Native Americans truly were historical, as you claim, and out-of-mind of Natives than there should be no fear of mass retributory violence and this entire discussion is esoteric to the discussion of equitable land redistribution and/or the nature and scope of present day racism in the United States. But if they aren't historical, and the resentment still simmers then, yes, the Settler-Colonial state is necessary to preserve the privileged position of white folk who are actively complicit in large scale violence against angry sub-alterns. Pick your lane and stick to it.

5. Related to that, you've twice scurried away from the direct question: What's your brightline for when a genocide becomes historical? What's the answer?

1.) Except they DID butcher french folk who aided the revolution. In any case how is killing children ok?

2.) Nice try but you were certainly implying it. You kept saying the US needed to be dissolved for the sake of justice; that has loaded overtones no matter how you spin it.

3.) Don't be cute. I'm well aware that Haiti was an exception and provoked by YEARS of abuse and cruelty (especially during the war of independence.) However that doesn't change that a.) Women and children were still slaughtered like cattle and that b.) the justification was a desire to "keep new frenchmen from being born." (i.e. the same logic the germans used to justify killing Jews). If they had just tried the people directly involved in the regime I wouldn't be bothered. If they had merely forcibly sent the white people away....it would have been dickish maybe but relatively humane and one could argue there was justice in those acts. Killing almost every man woman and child of french descent is NOT justice and that you seem to think it is really says a lot. In short I DO believe the subaltern is entitled to justice. I do not believe that mass murder is justice, whereas you seem to think it is.

4.) As far as I see it after a generation it becomes historical. You seem to honestly think White people are going "hee hee hee let's fuck over native americans hee hee hee". You also seem to think it would be justified for POC to kill civilians en masse. Like it or not the ink has dried. Other people live there now, and relocating them would require not only willpower but resources. Again it's why the Jewish Settlements in the West Bank are a major issue. In practice they won't be removed.

5.) In my mind it becomes historical a generation or so after the policies involving genocide have ended. We are no longer sterilizing natives or trying to suppress their culture. Therefore we are not actively practicing genocide against them. The effects can linger but the genocide itself is over.


In summation it's impossible to redistribute land on the scale that you desire in the way you desire. You're constant spouting that "white" is inherently racist also says a lot.

I've answered your questions. Now answer mine.

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.

The killing of children was OK for Dessalines in the same way it was OK for American troops in WW2's European theater. Not OK in abstract terms. In concrete terms, highlighting the lesser atrocities of one side and downplaying the greater atrocities of the other is apologism for the side that committed the greater atrocities. Which, let us remember, is the French Empire, which had in the immediate period proceeding committed all manner of viciousness in an attempt to genocide the black population and restock San-Domengue with freshly kidnapped slaves.

In this context, Dessalines' actions, which were considered horrific by people like Petion at the time, let us note, should be viewed similarly to massacres of surrendered Wehrmacht soldiers in Normandy by American Jewish soldiers. Regrettable, but understandable in the way a survivor of domestic abuse killing their abuser is.

Even then, the massacres weren't anti-white as a whole, which is where our initial disagreement began. I have continued down this path because it has been very fruitful to see people conjure up an imagined history of viciously brutal subalterns rather than the heartrending reality of human forgiveness.

[Effie]

Let's also be clear: the maximalist desires that I have ever seen from any Native person discussing decolonization in a formal or informal setting have involved totally voluntary action on behalf of settlers. You can easily critique this as naive or whatever, but the point is that every single person on the side you treat as nascent genocidares has accepted the need for a compromised compromise, and indeed if you familiarized yourself with the pop-demands, the emphasis is on changes that do not fundamentally alter the nature of who lives where in America and Canada.

[loomer]

Yeah, if anything I'm probably on the extreme end by advocating for the use of eminent domain principles to enforce necessary resettlement under treaties. Quite a lot of restorationists think even that's too far.

I also find the demarcation of 'a generation' as the dividing line by Yan curious. Should the art the Nazis stole remain stolen, as a vague analogy, or is it right to request it be restored to the families of its original owners or to the public sphere? How large a generation are we talking - does a single child born on stolen land justify its family's ongoing dispossession of those who lived there? If it is sufficient to merely end the policies actively calling for a genocide and then call it good after a generation, are we to avoid attempts at ensuring actual equity for colonized peoples in their own homelands because, 'hey, we aren't actively stealing your children, stealing your land, and raping your women (except when we are, which... we usually are, especially if the land has anything we want) and that's good enough'?

For a man who consistently returns to being offended by the mere imagined implication of evil, it is also curious to me how stridently Yan's model excludes the possibility of doing good through equitable resettlement by continually casting the sole possibility as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and enslavement. Why is it, Yan, that you feel entitled to employ the language of morality without embracing its full consequences for your own discourse?

[The Romulan Republic]

1. Effie is dealing pretty well with how Whites in practice didn't include Foreigners, American merchants, German Settlers, former soldiers who had defected, and even French folk who had aided the revolution. I'm not going to step in their debate on this.

2. Again, you bring up 'evil' which is a term I have never brought up and pointedly rebuked.

3. It's fascinating to me that the example you go to is the same one the Southern Slaveholders and the Confederacy used to defend the continuation of Slavery as a matter of self-defense and necessity. Really, the fact that your identity immediately goes to the well-being of the oppressors and not the oppressed speaks volumes, as does your contempt for justice from the sub-altern. Like, do you think it was wrong for Israel to have hung Eichmann?

4. Also interesting to me is the tension between this and your claims that the matters being discussed were historical. If the atrocities committed against Native Americans truly were historical, as you claim, and out-of-mind of Natives than there should be no fear of mass retributory violence and this entire discussion is esoteric to the discussion of equitable land redistribution and/or the nature and scope of present day racism in the United States. But if they aren't historical, and the resentment still simmers then, yes, the Settler-Colonial state is necessary to preserve the privileged position of white folk who are actively complicit in large scale violence against angry sub-alterns. Pick your lane and stick to it.

5. Related to that, you've twice scurried away from the direct question: What's your brightline for when a genocide becomes historical? What's the answer?

1.) Except they DID butcher french folk who aided the revolution. In any case how is killing children ok?

2.) Nice try but you were certainly implying it. You kept saying the US needed to be dissolved for the sake of justice; that has loaded overtones no matter how you spin it.

3.) Don't be cute. I'm well aware that Haiti was an exception and provoked by YEARS of abuse and cruelty (especially during the war of independence.) However that doesn't change that a.) Women and children were still slaughtered like cattle and that b.) the justification was a desire to "keep new frenchmen from being born." (i.e. the same logic the germans used to justify killing Jews). If they had just tried the people directly involved in the regime I wouldn't be bothered. If they had merely forcibly sent the white people away....it would have been dickish maybe but relatively humane and one could argue there was justice in those acts. Killing almost every man woman and child of french descent is NOT justice and that you seem to think it is really says a lot. In short I DO believe the subaltern is entitled to justice. I do not believe that mass murder is justice, whereas you seem to think it is.

4.) As far as I see it after a generation it becomes historical. You seem to honestly think White people are going "hee hee hee let's fuck over native americans hee hee hee". You also seem to think it would be justified for POC to kill civilians en masse. Like it or not the ink has dried. Other people live there now, and relocating them would require not only willpower but resources. Again it's why the Jewish Settlements in the West Bank are a major issue. In practice they won't be removed.

5.) In my mind it becomes historical a generation or so after the policies involving genocide have ended. We are no longer sterilizing natives or trying to suppress their culture. Therefore we are not actively practicing genocide against them. The effects can linger but the genocide itself is over.


In summation it's impossible to redistribute land on the scale that you desire in the way you desire. You're constant spouting that "white" is inherently racist also says a lot.

I've answered your questions. Now answer mine.

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.

The killing of children was OK for Dessalines in the same way it was OK for American troops in WW2's European theater. Not OK in abstract terms. In concrete terms, highlighting the lesser atrocities of one side and downplaying the greater atrocities of the other is apologism for the side that committed the greater atrocities. Which, let us remember, is the French Empire, which had in the immediate period proceeding committed all manner of viciousness in an attempt to genocide the black population and restock San-Domengue with freshly kidnapped slaves.

In this context, Dessalines' actions, which were considered horrific by people like Petion at the time, let us note, should be viewed similarly to massacres of surrendered Wehrmacht soldiers in Normandy by American Jewish soldiers. Regrettable, but understandable in the way a survivor of domestic abuse killing their abuser is.

Even then, the massacres weren't anti-white as a whole, which is where our initial disagreement began. I have continued down this path because it has been very fruitful to see people conjure up an imagined history of viciously brutal subalterns rather than the heartrending reality of human forgiveness.

I haven't been a part of the discussion on Dessaline, but I'm just going to point out that your analogy equates children to Nazi soldiers in downplaying their murder.

You need to rethink your position here.

[Gandalf]

I'm oretty sure that post is referring to the dead children of Hiroshima/Dresden/et al.

[Rogue 9]

I'm oretty sure that post is referring to the dead children of Hiroshima/Dresden/et al.

I don't know, if it was comparing the inevitable consequences of aerial warfare with unguided and nuclear munitions to deliberate face to face massacre of children, it would be strange to specify the European theater. Effie can feel free to clarify, of course.

[The Romulan Republic]

That would be a somewhat more apt comparison, at least. But I was referring to this:

In this context, Dessalines' actions, which were considered horrific by people like Petion at the time, let us note, should be viewed similarly to massacres of surrendered Wehrmacht soldiers in Normandy by American Jewish soldiers. Regrettable, but understandable in the way a survivor of domestic abuse killing their abuser is.

[Darth Yan]

Yeah, if anything I'm probably on the extreme end by advocating for the use of eminent domain principles to enforce necessary resettlement under treaties. Quite a lot of restorationists think even that's too far.

I also find the demarcation of 'a generation' as the dividing line by Yan curious. Should the art the Nazis stole remain stolen, as a vague analogy, or is it right to request it be restored to the families of its original owners or to the public sphere? How large a generation are we talking - does a single child born on stolen land justify its family's ongoing dispossession of those who lived there? If it is sufficient to merely end the policies actively calling for a genocide and then call it good after a generation, are we to avoid attempts at ensuring actual equity for colonized peoples in their own homelands because, 'hey, we aren't actively stealing your children, stealing your land, and raping your women (except when we are, which... we usually are, especially if the land has anything we want) and that's good enough'?

For a man who consistently returns to being offended by the mere imagined implication of evil, it is also curious to me how stridently Yan's model excludes the possibility of doing good through equitable resettlement by continually casting the sole possibility as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and enslavement. Why is it, Yan, that you feel entitled to employ the language of morality without embracing its full consequences for your own discourse?

Don't be obtuse. Resettling hundreds of thousands of people is NOT the same as resettling a single family. A single family can be very easily compensated and given a new home. What you're calling for is upending people in ENTIRE STATES at most and ENTIRE COUNTIES at least. That would require a fuckload of resources time and money. And how do you ensure that the natives are the majority? Or that the government has exact parity? Notably Nelson Mandela didn't break up large white farms when the ANC came to power even though there were Black South Africans who wanted just that. Their reasons were understandable (those farms were built on stolen land) but Mandela understood that simply snatching that land away wouldn't do any good or undo the wrong.

And it's a hell of a lot easier to return a single piece of art than it is to return land so it's a different situation.

What you're asking for isn't equitable resettlement. It's basically saying "I don't care if you've been living here for generations, my people were forcibly expelled and we want it all back. Oh, you've lived here all your life? Too fucking bad."

I'm oretty sure that post is referring to the dead children of Hiroshima/Dresden/et al.

No. Effie was clearly equating the children and women with Wermacht soldiers. That's an asinine comparison especially since the justification used to kill women was the idea they'd give birth to new frenchmen who would enslave them. Effie is apologizing for mass murder

[loomer]

Yeah, if anything I'm probably on the extreme end by advocating for the use of eminent domain principles to enforce necessary resettlement under treaties. Quite a lot of restorationists think even that's too far.

I also find the demarcation of 'a generation' as the dividing line by Yan curious. Should the art the Nazis stole remain stolen, as a vague analogy, or is it right to request it be restored to the families of its original owners or to the public sphere? How large a generation are we talking - does a single child born on stolen land justify its family's ongoing dispossession of those who lived there? If it is sufficient to merely end the policies actively calling for a genocide and then call it good after a generation, are we to avoid attempts at ensuring actual equity for colonized peoples in their own homelands because, 'hey, we aren't actively stealing your children, stealing your land, and raping your women (except when we are, which... we usually are, especially if the land has anything we want) and that's good enough'?

For a man who consistently returns to being offended by the mere imagined implication of evil, it is also curious to me how stridently Yan's model excludes the possibility of doing good through equitable resettlement by continually casting the sole possibility as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and enslavement. Why is it, Yan, that you feel entitled to employ the language of morality without embracing its full consequences for your own discourse?

Don't be obtuse. Resettling hundreds of thousands of people is NOT the same as resettling a single family. A single family can be very easily compensated and given a new home. What you're calling for is upending people in ENTIRE STATES at most and ENTIRE COUNTIES at least. That would require a fuckload of resources time and money. And how do you ensure that the natives are the majority? Or that the government has exact parity? Notably Nelson Mandela didn't break up large white farms when the ANC came to power even though there were Black South Africans who wanted just that. Their reasons were understandable (those farms were built on stolen land) but Mandela understood that simply snatching that land away wouldn't do any good or undo the wrong.

And it's a hell of a lot easier to return a single piece of art than it is to return land so it's a different situation.

What you're asking for isn't equitable resettlement. It's basically saying "I don't care if you've been living here for generations, my people were forcibly expelled and we want it all back. Oh, you've lived here all your life? Too fucking bad."

No, we're not calling for that. We repeatedly make this correction, and you repeatedly ignore it. What part of 'we want equitable resettlement' do you not grasp? Allow me to lay out what that would look like very clearly:
1. Negotiated treaties for land use that will, where possible, avoid disruption to existing living arrangements, but which
(a), recognize that some areas are not suitable for habitation due to their sacred dimension,
(b), recognize that some areas are not suitable for habitation as they comprise border territories that for practical, legal, and symbolic purposes need to be cleared, and
(c), recognize the distinction between family homes and other forms of occupation including industrial, agricultural, and commercial posession
2. Negotiated treaties for land use for 1(c), where disruption to livelihoods is minimized while returning ownership of the land to its traditional custodians, with tenancy agreements or similar tools where possible being employed to allow existing arrangements to continue under a fairer, more equitable situation for both settler and Indigenous populations
3. Return of full native title where land is not in use to its traditional custodians, with or without just payment as determined by circumstances (e.g., if the land is the sole possession of an impoverished person, payment is warranted - if the land is a possession of a billionaire, they can go fuck themselves)
4. The equitable re-settling of any persons displaced under clause 1, where possible in areas of their choosing or where they have family, in homes that are suitable for providing a reasonable level of human dignity and comfort, and with the recognition that yes, it is awful to lose your family's land - but sometimes, it is also just and necessary. This is also why we have eminent domain principles in our legal systems - sometimes it simply has to happen for the common good (or, regrettably, sometimes for commercial purposes - but that's another kettle of fish entirely) and so the state is empowered to seize land held for generations as is.

These four elements are common, in various forms, to the bulk of all such proposals. This is not, as you say, 'snatching the land away'. It is restoring ownership, wherever possible, to the traditional owners while taking steps to avoid mass displacements and, where they are necessary for treaty purposes, to ensure that the displaced have dignity, comfort, and a secure home to go to.

You also seem hung up on the idea that the states must magically become Indigenous-majority or somehow disenfranchise the settlers. No such proposal is being made - the first step here is the willing participation of the existing settler populations in making amends and forging a better future. If that is accomplished, why on earth would we obsess over enslaving or genociding those same settlers? Why would we want, let alone need, to disenfranchise those willing to step hand-in-hand into a brighter and better future of universal brotherhood?

And no, asking about the art and a single child is not obtuse. I invoke them specifically as they lie at the fringe of what you suggest the dividing line of genocide culpability lies. It is your position that after a generation, the issue ceases. Either your position is not, in fact, that the mere passage of time is enough, or the art can stay with the family of the Nazis and the single child justifies disposession. Which is it to be? Is it more than the mere passage of time that creates a divide between culpability and non-culpability - is a novus actus interveniens necessary - or is time sufficient? If time in the given measure - 'a generation' is sufficient, how do we define a generational span, and in what numbers is it to be considered if a single child is not sufficient?

[Rogue 9]

In regard to the original topic, as well as touching on what it's turned into, Representative Haaland of New Mexico, a native Pueblo, is publicly weighing in against asking anyone to leave the country, to include excluding herself from doing so when pressed on the topic. Video link.

[Gandalf]

I'm oretty sure that post is referring to the dead children of Hiroshima/Dresden/et al.

No. Effie was clearly equating the children and women with Wermacht soldiers. That's an asinine comparison especially since the justification used to kill women was the idea they'd give birth to new frenchmen who would enslave them. Effie is apologizing for mass murder

Since you're clearly reading my posts, how about responding to the one where you accused me of twisting your words?

[Darth Yan]

I was talking about Effie. She said “do you concede the US should be disbanded” when I said “it’s like only the us is evil enough to warrant being disbanded.” THAT is what I was referring too. I was paraphrasing what I saw as Straha being hypocritical and not applying consistent standards.

I do appreciate loomers clarification but feel that they’re being niave in thinking this can be implemented. Many people who live in those lands don’t know or care about past wrongs. As far as they see it why should they give up the places they lived their whole lives to avenge a wrong inflicted years ago?

It’s like when the Palestinians wouldn’t feel the need to give up the land they lived on for centuries because the Jews lived there 2000 years ago and because some asshole in Germany committed genocide necessitated a refuge.

[Gandalf]

I was talking about Effie. She said “do you concede the US should be disbanded” when I said “it’s like only the us is evil enough to warrant being disbanded.” THAT is what I was referring too. I was paraphrasing what I saw as Straha being hypocritical and not applying consistent standards.

Considering it was immediately after mine, which was well over an hour earlier, I don't believe that for a second.

[loomer]

I do appreciate loomers clarification but feel that they’re being niave in thinking this can be implemented. Many people who live in those lands don’t know or care about past wrongs. As far as they see it why should they give up the places they lived their whole lives to avenge a wrong inflicted years ago?

It’s like when the Palestinians wouldn’t feel the need to give up the land they lived on for centuries because the Jews lived there 2000 years ago and because some asshole in Germany committed genocide necessitated a refuge.

Perhaps naive, but I'm sure you can see why those of us calling for the dissolution of settler-states and equitable resettlement find it objectionable when people leap right to 'but that'd be genocide!' We also recognize that many people living in settler-states don't know or care about what was done. Changing that is part of the process, and the debate around why the US, Australia, etc should be dissolved in their current form - even if they largely retain their boundaries or even political systems (to the extent possible while also attaining real change) in whatever form emerges next - is part of this process.

[Jub]

I was talking about Effie. She said “do you concede the US should be disbanded” when I said “it’s like only the us is evil enough to warrant being disbanded.” THAT is what I was referring too. I was paraphrasing what I saw as Straha being hypocritical and not applying consistent standards.

I do appreciate loomers clarification but feel that they’re being niave in thinking this can be implemented. Many people who live in those lands don’t know or care about past wrongs. As far as they see it why should they give up the places they lived their whole lives to avenge a wrong inflicted years ago?

It’s like when the Palestinians wouldn’t feel the need to give up the land they lived on for centuries because the Jews lived there 2000 years ago and because some asshole in Germany committed genocide necessitated a refuge.

Isreal was a mistake. The allied powers should have agreed to set up a territory within one of their own borders rather than displace an established people to create an effectively racist state. That they failed to do this is one of the root causes for the current unrest in the middle east.

[Effie]

1.) Except they DID butcher french folk who aided the revolution. In any case how is killing children ok?

2.) Nice try but you were certainly implying it. You kept saying the US needed to be dissolved for the sake of justice; that has loaded overtones no matter how you spin it.

3.) Don't be cute. I'm well aware that Haiti was an exception and provoked by YEARS of abuse and cruelty (especially during the war of independence.) However that doesn't change that a.) Women and children were still slaughtered like cattle and that b.) the justification was a desire to "keep new frenchmen from being born." (i.e. the same logic the germans used to justify killing Jews). If they had just tried the people directly involved in the regime I wouldn't be bothered. If they had merely forcibly sent the white people away....it would have been dickish maybe but relatively humane and one could argue there was justice in those acts. Killing almost every man woman and child of french descent is NOT justice and that you seem to think it is really says a lot. In short I DO believe the subaltern is entitled to justice. I do not believe that mass murder is justice, whereas you seem to think it is.

4.) As far as I see it after a generation it becomes historical. You seem to honestly think White people are going "hee hee hee let's fuck over native americans hee hee hee". You also seem to think it would be justified for POC to kill civilians en masse. Like it or not the ink has dried. Other people live there now, and relocating them would require not only willpower but resources. Again it's why the Jewish Settlements in the West Bank are a major issue. In practice they won't be removed.

5.) In my mind it becomes historical a generation or so after the policies involving genocide have ended. We are no longer sterilizing natives or trying to suppress their culture. Therefore we are not actively practicing genocide against them. The effects can linger but the genocide itself is over.


In summation it's impossible to redistribute land on the scale that you desire in the way you desire. You're constant spouting that "white" is inherently racist also says a lot.

I've answered your questions. Now answer mine.

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.

The killing of children was OK for Dessalines in the same way it was OK for American troops in WW2's European theater. Not OK in abstract terms. In concrete terms, highlighting the lesser atrocities of one side and downplaying the greater atrocities of the other is apologism for the side that committed the greater atrocities. Which, let us remember, is the French Empire, which had in the immediate period proceeding committed all manner of viciousness in an attempt to genocide the black population and restock San-Domengue with freshly kidnapped slaves.

In this context, Dessalines' actions, which were considered horrific by people like Petion at the time, let us note, should be viewed similarly to massacres of surrendered Wehrmacht soldiers in Normandy by American Jewish soldiers. Regrettable, but understandable in the way a survivor of domestic abuse killing their abuser is.

Even then, the massacres weren't anti-white as a whole, which is where our initial disagreement began. I have continued down this path because it has been very fruitful to see people conjure up an imagined history of viciously brutal subalterns rather than the heartrending reality of human forgiveness.

I haven't been a part of the discussion on Dessaline, but I'm just going to point out that your analogy equates children to Nazi soldiers in downplaying their murder.

You need to rethink your position here.

Nope, I'm comparing the deaths of children to the deaths of children, and the deaths of the French as a whole to the deaths of surrendered Wehrmacht soldiers. To judge from people's overall reaction to this, they seem to have no problem with the war crime of killing surrendered prisoners of war? I was not expecting that rhetorical tack.

You seem to think that the massacre was solely of innocents- children, people uninvolved in the operation of slavery, etc. This is incorrect. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the relevant history?

I'm oretty sure that post is referring to the dead children of Hiroshima/Dresden/et al.

I don't know, if it was comparing the inevitable consequences of aerial warfare with unguided and nuclear munitions to deliberate face to face massacre of children, it would be strange to specify the European theater. Effie can feel free to clarify, of course.

I specified the European theater because the moral case for the acceptability of slaughter from the air is much stronger there. In any case, the death of the French children was also an inevitable consequence of extinguishing any French title to the land of Haiti to secure the fragile Haitian state from the possibility of recolonization by legal means. It is always possible to phrase killing as morally acceptable, or at least nothing worth thinking about, by using language like "inevitable consequence".

[Jub]

I don't know, if it was comparing the inevitable consequences of aerial warfare with unguided and nuclear munitions to deliberate face to face massacre of children, it would be strange to specify the European theater. Effie can feel free to clarify, of course.

Was such a retaliatory slaughter not a foreseeable consequence of keeping and brutalizing a population of slaves to the point of armed revolt? If so, did the French not effectively sign their own death warrants and if not what would make such a slaughter a foreseeable consequence?