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

[wautd]

Woops, posted in wrong topic. Feel free to delete my prior post

[loomer]

<snip a load of waffling nonsense that addresses issues already repeatedly addressed>

For fuck's sake be quiet unless you're willing to actually read what's been posted and engage with it. Most of what you raise here has been repeatedly addressed and your interpretation of 'the US is a racist state' as 'anyone who won't want to leave their home is a racist' is the dumbest fucking thing.

[Darth Yan]

No you didnt. Look at the USSR and how messy that was. And you were making those insinuations.

[Nicholas]

There are several rather peculiar ideas on display in the anti-decolonization and decolonization critical perspectives here, which I'm going to venture to explore.

The US will never dissolve willingly, because it cannot dissolve willingly
This one is especially bleak to see, as it presupposes a fundamental amorality or outright immorality in the American - and Canadian, and Australian, and so on - character so severe and inalterable that it cannot be repaired or altered on any meaningful level. To a sense, I perceive it as racialized - a subconscious negative internalization of the settler-native-slave triad, imputing a fundamental evil to people.

At some point in the following chain of proposals, they perceive a disconnect:

1. All, or at least most, people are not innately evil and prefer justice to injustice, love to hate, kindness to cruelty, and so on and so forth;
2. The colonization of CANZUS constituted an immoral seizure of land, accompanied by a deliberate desire to replace, supplant, and exterminate the Indigenous occupants of that land either immediately or over time;
3. The resulting nations that have developed are built on an inherently immoral foundation, with serious lingering structural effects that render them defacto (if not sometimes openly) white supremacist and settler-supremacist (related but distinct issues);
4. The ongoing dispossession of Indigenous peoples from their land by these nations and the inherently immoral foundation of the nation constitute a delict - a wrong - against the common law and morality of the nation;
5. Therefore, all or most people preferring justice to injustice are (or ought to be able to become) aware of the ongoing delict as a delict and capable of desiring to make right the enduring and ongoing wrongs done during the foundation of the nation and since;
6. If this requires the dissolution of the nation as currently constituted, as a white supremacist and settler-supremacist state, then all or most people being capable of desiring to make right this wrong are in turn capable of desiring to dissolve the nation as currently constituted;
7. That, these nations having a democratic character, a referendum or similar tool of democratic decision making can and ought be employed to dissolve the nation.

I would rephrase your first point as "All, or at least most, people are not innately evil and prefer justice to injustice, love to hate, kindness to cruelty, so long as this does not do serious harm to themselves or those they love." You have convinced me that your proposal implemented as you desire it to be implemented would not do serious harm to a large portion of the US population and so it is theoretically possible that it could be implemented by persuasion.

Indigenous states will displace millions from their homes
The logic goes something like this:
1. Indigenous lands were omnipresent,
2. If we return them to Indigenous statehood, settler peoples will have to move, and because of 1, there is nowhere to go or too many people displaced.

However, this process relies on a hidden intermediary step - 1.5: Indigenous states must be ethnostates.
There is no such requirement in the vast bulk of decolonization proposals, and indeed, the crux of decolonization efforts in settler-states is the dismantling of the settler-native-slave triad. Kicking out all the Settlers is not part of this dismantling process - in fact, it goes against the core concept of dismantling the triad and undergoing a process of reconciliation and indigenization. While it is accepted that some will have to move to restore areas of special sacred significance etc, this is no different to any other nation-building project; it is not desired that every settler will leave, but rather, that a new and better future may be created in which settler, native, and slave become not a triad of oppression, but three hands in hands as friends, brothers, and allies. To exile the settler is so fundamentally contrary to what is sought as to be self-defeating of the ethos of decolonization.

This notion, then, is born out of a fundamentally false conception of what is proposed in decolonizing settler-states. It presupposes both that the decolonization intends only to 'flip the script', as it were, and step 1.5. Neither notion is correct.

You have said this repeatedly but I don't understand how you intend this to work. To help me understand could you answer a couple of questions for me?

Do you intend the new states to be modern mass democracies? Yes or No?

If Yes, since the vast majority of people living in the new states (and thus the vast majority of voters) will not be indigenous either racially or culturally what will make the new states indigenous?

If No, how do you intend these new states to be governed and how will this government system guarantee their indigenous character?

Thanks,
Nicholas

[Nicholas]

Let's start this as a more basic question: Do you believe the US should, morally, exist? If yes, why? If not, then why shouldn't people advocate for its dissolution regardless of the short-term political viability of that strategy?

Yes. The existence of the US today is legitimated by two things.

First, the US government it is the only power capable of governing the territory of the US at this time and the harm done by the absence of government in the territory would be significantly worse then the harm the US government does by existing. So under the idea that when you have to choose between two evils you should choose the one that will do the less harm the US government should exist.

Second, the US government has the support of the vast majority of the people actually living in the US today and so under the doctrine of popular sovereignty ought to exist.

Obviously if your campaign to persuade people that the US should be dissolved succeeds in acquiring popular support and a new organization or organizations capable of governing the territory of the US are created these would cease to be true but as long as they are true the United States should exist.

I would like to engage with your repeated statement that because US sovereignty and US property law is built on a foundation of ethnic cleansing it is illegitimate. But I cannot figure out how to assemble the following points, that believe I have seen you make, into a logical whole:

1) US property law is illegitimate because grounded on theft and ethnic cleansing.
2) Most property holders in the US should not be dispossessed of their property
3) The native tribes are the rightful sovereigns over the territory of the US
4) Most people residing in the territory of the US should not be forced to move
5) The economic and political arrangements that generate the prosperity the US currently enjoys should not be disrupted in a way which would reduce that prosperity

Nicholas

[Rogue 9]

The original discussion that evolved in this thread was between a group of people (Gandalf, myself, etc.) who staked out a position that the United States is structurally racist and that Trump's statements were part of that structural racism which meant that if someone wanted to actually oppose Trump's statements they needed to advocate for a radical restructuring of the United States...

Which is a really strange position to stake out, since the structure of the United States is independent of Donald Trump and his statements can reasonably be opposed by American patriots, a fact that's proven every damn day when precisely that happens. Donald Trump is opposed to the legal structure of the United States, in fact, viewing the Constitution as an inconvenience and exhibiting a complete lack of understanding of how it works. Meanwhile, that same Constitution provides the best mechanism for enforcing treaties between the native nations and the United States in its sixth article, and its dissolution would dissolve one of the parties to the treaties, leaving the native nations with nothing to enforce, no way to enforce that fat load of nothing, and a distinct disadvantage in any replacement arrangement. Trying to pin the whole of the American framework with the failings of Donald Trump is a non-starter, and thinking that a dissolution of the United States on any semi-realistic terms that could cause that to happen will improve the lot of the native nations is laughable. Hell, even back in 1861 Texas' secondary complaint in its secession documents after bitching about abolitionists was that the federal government wasn't killing the natives enough to suit them. That's as close to dissolution as the United States has ever come, and if it should ever happen again it will almost certainly be under similar circumstances rather than a ceding of power to the native nations.

Once again, someone attempts to argue against decolonization by arguing Americans are ravening genocidal monsters who, if not restrained by a suitably harsh state which nevertheless appears to operate entirely invisibly in its repression of them, would go about slaughtering Native people wantonly. Even if this was true, surely that would make our destruction even more necessary and urgent, rather than less?

That's a fucking stupid misrepresentation of what I said, not that I expected anything less. The majority doesn't need to be genocidal monsters to massively outvote a ~1% minority. So, ruling out massive population displacement, either the replacement is some sort of republic, which the native nations could not hope to dominate, or it's an ethnically based minority despotism with three hundred million some odd second class citizens, which could not be self-sustaining. The "similar circumstances" I cite is not Texas wanting to kill the natives, but rather a state government attempting to break away from the United States,and no state government willing to try such a thing is going to care about the native nations to the degree that it's willing to promptly dissolve itself and turn over power to them. They don't need to be ravening genocidal monsters to not serve the goal of native ascendancy.

The original discussion that evolved in this thread was between a group of people (Gandalf, myself, etc.) who staked out a position that the United States is structurally racist and that Trump's statements were part of that structural racism which meant that if someone wanted to actually oppose Trump's statements they needed to advocate for a radical restructuring of the United States...

Which is a really strange position to stake out, since the structure of the United States is independent of Donald Trump and his statements can reasonably be opposed by American patriots, a fact that's proven every damn day when precisely that happens. Donald Trump is opposed to the legal structure of the United States, in fact, viewing the Constitution as an inconvenience and exhibiting a complete lack of understanding of how it works.

A. What Trump has done is try to push the constitution to the limits of what executive power allows. He has succeeded in some areas, and failed spectacularly in most. But his attempts to do so aren't aberrations from the US constitutional order, they are the entire point of having separated branches that have vested self-interest in expanding their power. This is something hammered home again and again in the Federalist Papers, and expanding the powers of the executive branch has been a repeated trend for every President in history. In other words, Trump's power grab isn't a bug, it's a feature.

B. I talked about the positioning of the President and the USFG and occupied land at some length earlier on in this thread. If you want to have a serious discussion about that revisit it there.

The fact that he has failed spectacularly in most of his attempts is also a feature, much more so than his attempts in the first place. Further, that misses the point; his goals and specific policies are not structural to the United States. You're talking about the office of the Presidency while conflating it with its current occupant. I'm talking about its current occupant.

Meanwhile, that same Constitution provides the best mechanism for enforcing treaties between the native nations and the United States in its sixth article, and its dissolution would dissolve one of the parties to the treaties, leaving the native nations with nothing to enforce, no way to enforce that fat load of nothing, and a distinct disadvantage in any replacement arrangement.

Except Treaties have been unilaterally moved out of the question of international law and into the world of domestic matters by congress in the Indian Appropriations Act. The Supreme Court has ruled that it can abrograte Treaty obligations unilaterally and that "'the exclusive right of the United States to extinguish' Indian title has never been doubted. And whether it be done by treaty, by the sword, by purchase, by the exercise of complete dominion adverse to the right of occupancy, or otherwise, its justness is not open to inquiry in the courts." In other words, Congress can do whatever the fuck it wants to Native Tribes and they can do jack squat about it, and precedent (and the court's reading of the constitution) means that the Court cannot interfere.

'Best Mechanism' my ass.

Beats the hell out of a fat load of nothing. New York would most definitely be collecting taxes from the Seneca if no one was stopping them from doing so, to pull an example out of this thread. And what Congress can do, Congress can undo. The United States is a republic, and as such it can be altered within the framework of the state; indeed, doing so was the intention from the beginning, and it has been done to date twenty-seven times.

Trying to pin the whole of the American framework with the failings of Donald Trump is a non-starter, and thinking that a dissolution of the United States on any semi-realistic terms that could cause that to happen will improve the lot of the native nations is laughable. Hell, even back in 1861 Texas' secondary complaint in its secession documents after bitching about abolitionists was that the federal government wasn't killing the natives enough to suit them. That's as close to dissolution as the United States has ever come, and if it should ever happen again it will almost certainly be under similar circumstances rather than a ceding of power to the native nations.

So, to be clear, your argument for the reason to defend the United States is that its populace are bloodthirsty murderers who want to kill Natives? And you argue that the courts and constitution, which give complete control over Native lands to an elected congress in a way that can't be reviewed by the courts, are the best protections that Native Tribes have in the United States?

Can you detect my skepticism?

No, to be clear, my argument for defending the United States in this particular instance is that a seceding state is not going to have the interests of the natives in mind. Arizona is not going to break itself off from the United States just to give the questionable benefits of doing so to the Navajo and Hopi. I seriously doubt anyone in this day and age is going to try to do that with the specific goal of attacking the native nations, but that doesn't mean they'll advance native interests either.

I said it upthread and I'll say it again; the best chance to render justice to the native nations, insofar as that's still possible, lies in changing the culture of the United States and impressing its inhabitants with the need to do so. And having done that, dissolving the United States is patently unnecessary; all you'd need is a couple of election cycles. Conversely, if you dissolve the United States having not done that, its successors are unlikely to be much better on that score.

[Effie]

Which is a really strange position to stake out, since the structure of the United States is independent of Donald Trump and his statements can reasonably be opposed by American patriots, a fact that's proven every damn day when precisely that happens. Donald Trump is opposed to the legal structure of the United States, in fact, viewing the Constitution as an inconvenience and exhibiting a complete lack of understanding of how it works. Meanwhile, that same Constitution provides the best mechanism for enforcing treaties between the native nations and the United States in its sixth article, and its dissolution would dissolve one of the parties to the treaties, leaving the native nations with nothing to enforce, no way to enforce that fat load of nothing, and a distinct disadvantage in any replacement arrangement. Trying to pin the whole of the American framework with the failings of Donald Trump is a non-starter, and thinking that a dissolution of the United States on any semi-realistic terms that could cause that to happen will improve the lot of the native nations is laughable. Hell, even back in 1861 Texas' secondary complaint in its secession documents after bitching about abolitionists was that the federal government wasn't killing the natives enough to suit them. That's as close to dissolution as the United States has ever come, and if it should ever happen again it will almost certainly be under similar circumstances rather than a ceding of power to the native nations.

Once again, someone attempts to argue against decolonization by arguing Americans are ravening genocidal monsters who, if not restrained by a suitably harsh state which nevertheless appears to operate entirely invisibly in its repression of them, would go about slaughtering Native people wantonly. Even if this was true, surely that would make our destruction even more necessary and urgent, rather than less?

That's a fucking stupid misrepresentation of what I said, not that I expected anything less. The majority doesn't need to be genocidal monsters to massively outvote a ~1% minority. So, ruling out massive population displacement, either the replacement is some sort of republic, which the native nations could not hope to dominate, or it's an ethnically based minority despotism with three hundred million some odd second class citizens, which could not be self-sustaining. The "similar circumstances" I cite is not Texas wanting to kill the natives, but rather a state government attempting to break away from the United States,and no state government willing to try such a thing is going to care about the native nations to the degree that it's willing to promptly dissolve itself and turn over power to them. They don't need to be ravening genocidal monsters to not serve the goal of native ascendancy.

So your argument is... that Natives are too small a minority to have meaningful political power and if they attempt to garner meaningful political power they will simply be crushed violently by the not-at-all brutishly violent Americans.

I am curious, do you believe in abolishing the Senate and dissolving federalism?

[Rogue 9]

That's a fucking stupid misrepresentation of what I said, not that I expected anything less. The majority doesn't need to be genocidal monsters to massively outvote a ~1% minority. So, ruling out massive population displacement, either the replacement is some sort of republic, which the native nations could not hope to dominate, or it's an ethnically based minority despotism with three hundred million some odd second class citizens, which could not be self-sustaining. The "similar circumstances" I cite is not Texas wanting to kill the natives, but rather a state government attempting to break away from the United States,and no state government willing to try such a thing is going to care about the native nations to the degree that it's willing to promptly dissolve itself and turn over power to them. They don't need to be ravening genocidal monsters to not serve the goal of native ascendancy.

So your argument is... that Natives are too small a minority to have meaningful political power and if they attempt to garner meaningful political power they will simply be crushed violently by the not-at-all brutishly violent Americans.

I am curious, do you believe in abolishing the Senate and dissolving federalism?

... Are Republicans crushed violently in the city government of San Francisco, or Democrats crushed violently in the state governments of the Dakotas? You're the one assuming brutish violence at every turn.

I'm pretty certain I know where you're going asking about the Senate (it's arguable that its federalist role is already severely weakened by the popular election of Senators), so let me ask you this: What governmental system do you envision as a replacement for the United States?

[Effie]

That's a fucking stupid misrepresentation of what I said, not that I expected anything less. The majority doesn't need to be genocidal monsters to massively outvote a ~1% minority. So, ruling out massive population displacement, either the replacement is some sort of republic, which the native nations could not hope to dominate, or it's an ethnically based minority despotism with three hundred million some odd second class citizens, which could not be self-sustaining. The "similar circumstances" I cite is not Texas wanting to kill the natives, but rather a state government attempting to break away from the United States,and no state government willing to try such a thing is going to care about the native nations to the degree that it's willing to promptly dissolve itself and turn over power to them. They don't need to be ravening genocidal monsters to not serve the goal of native ascendancy.

So your argument is... that Natives are too small a minority to have meaningful political power and if they attempt to garner meaningful political power they will simply be crushed violently by the not-at-all brutishly violent Americans.

I am curious, do you believe in abolishing the Senate and dissolving federalism?

... Are Republicans crushed violently in the city government of San Francisco, or Democrats crushed violently in the state governments of the Dakotas? You're the one assuming brutish violence at every turn.

I'm pretty certain I know where you're going asking about the Senate (it's arguable that its federalist role is already severely weakened by the popular election of Senators), so let me ask you this: What governmental system do you envision as a replacement for the United States?

Okay, so you envision an ethnic despotism that is overthrown by voting? What? Maybe you should avoid invoking tyranny as a prospect if you don't want to talk about it.

My preferred governmental system is best described as an absolutist lesbocracy, but that's not exactly relevant. More relevant is that you're asserting decolonization is illegitimate because it would be non-majoritarian. So I am asking if you believe in eliminating other non-majoritarian elements of the US government. If not, what's the conceptual difference?

[Rogue 9]

... Are Republicans crushed violently in the city government of San Francisco, or Democrats crushed violently in the state governments of the Dakotas? You're the one assuming brutish violence at every turn.

I'm pretty certain I know where you're going asking about the Senate (it's arguable that its federalist role is already severely weakened by the popular election of Senators), so let me ask you this: What governmental system do you envision as a replacement for the United States?

Okay, so you envision an ethnic despotism that is overthrown by voting? What? Maybe you should avoid invoking tyranny as a prospect if you don't want to talk about it.

I'm not envisioning anything; I'm asking what it is that you and your compatriots envision and provided a couple of possible examples. A despotism should be overthrown by whatever means is necessary and trying to establish one with almost no popular support is doomed to failure for obvious reasons; on the other hand, a republic is not going to be under the control of a tiny minority of its citizens (barring said tiny minority being ludicrously rich and corruption being rampant, of course). I'm generously presuming that's not what you're picturing, but trying to get what exactly you, Straha, and Loomer believe is going to ensure native ascendancy over a successor to the United States in any remotely plausible scenario.

My preferred governmental system is best described as an absolutist lesbocracy, but that's not exactly relevant. More relevant is that you're asserting decolonization is illegitimate because it would be non-majoritarian. So I am asking if you believe in eliminating other non-majoritarian elements of the US government. If not, what's the conceptual difference?

If I were to eliminate non-majoritarian elements of the U.S. government, I'd start with the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 and its distorting effect on the selection of Electors. That said, the federal system isn't perfect, but it has its uses and isn't wildly undemocratic. Ethnostates by their nature are.

For the record, I'm not an absolute majoritarian; you may notice I'm not advocating for direct democracy, to start with. There are things the majority should not be able to vote into policy. Most of them are summarized in the Bill of Rights. That doesn't mean the people should get no say in their government whatsoever, though, and again, I'm trying to get out of you what you envision that would ensure native ascendancy. Given your stated preferred governmental system, however, I doubt it's going to be something I'd consider acceptable (the key there being "absolutist," not "lesbocracy," in case you're wondering).

[Effie]

... Are Republicans crushed violently in the city government of San Francisco, or Democrats crushed violently in the state governments of the Dakotas? You're the one assuming brutish violence at every turn.

I'm pretty certain I know where you're going asking about the Senate (it's arguable that its federalist role is already severely weakened by the popular election of Senators), so let me ask you this: What governmental system do you envision as a replacement for the United States?

Okay, so you envision an ethnic despotism that is overthrown by voting? What? Maybe you should avoid invoking tyranny as a prospect if you don't want to talk about it.

I'm not envisioning anything; I'm asking what it is that you and your compatriots envision and provided a couple of possible examples. A despotism should be overthrown by whatever means is necessary and trying to establish one with almost no popular support is doomed to failure for obvious reasons; on the other hand, a republic is not going to be under the control of a tiny minority of its citizens (barring said tiny minority being ludicrously rich and corruption being rampant, of course). I'm generously presuming that's not what you're picturing, but trying to get what exactly you, Straha, and Loomer believe is going to ensure native ascendancy over a successor to the United States in any remotely plausible scenario.

My preferred governmental system is best described as an absolutist lesbocracy, but that's not exactly relevant. More relevant is that you're asserting decolonization is illegitimate because it would be non-majoritarian. So I am asking if you believe in eliminating other non-majoritarian elements of the US government. If not, what's the conceptual difference?

If I were to eliminate non-majoritarian elements of the U.S. government, I'd start with the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 and its distorting effect on the selection of Electors. That said, the federal system isn't perfect, but it has its uses and isn't wildly undemocratic. Ethnostates by their nature are.

For the record, I'm not an absolute majoritarian; you may notice I'm not advocating for direct democracy, to start with. There are things the majority should not be able to vote into policy. Most of them are summarized in the Bill of Rights. That doesn't mean the people should get no say in their government whatsoever, though, and again, I'm trying to get out of you what you envision that would ensure native ascendancy. Given your stated preferred governmental system, however, I doubt it's going to be something I'd consider acceptable (the key there being "absolutist," not "lesbocracy," in case you're wondering).

You're not answering my question. Why would, say, requiring Native tribes have representation similar to that of states in Congress (2 senators, at least 1 representative) be unacceptably anti-majoritarian while the existence of the Senate is acceptably anti-majoritarian?

[Rogue 9]

I'm not envisioning anything; I'm asking what it is that you and your compatriots envision and provided a couple of possible examples. A despotism should be overthrown by whatever means is necessary and trying to establish one with almost no popular support is doomed to failure for obvious reasons; on the other hand, a republic is not going to be under the control of a tiny minority of its citizens (barring said tiny minority being ludicrously rich and corruption being rampant, of course). I'm generously presuming that's not what you're picturing, but trying to get what exactly you, Straha, and Loomer believe is going to ensure native ascendancy over a successor to the United States in any remotely plausible scenario.

My preferred governmental system is best described as an absolutist lesbocracy, but that's not exactly relevant. More relevant is that you're asserting decolonization is illegitimate because it would be non-majoritarian. So I am asking if you believe in eliminating other non-majoritarian elements of the US government. If not, what's the conceptual difference?

If I were to eliminate non-majoritarian elements of the U.S. government, I'd start with the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 and its distorting effect on the selection of Electors. That said, the federal system isn't perfect, but it has its uses and isn't wildly undemocratic. Ethnostates by their nature are.

For the record, I'm not an absolute majoritarian; you may notice I'm not advocating for direct democracy, to start with. There are things the majority should not be able to vote into policy. Most of them are summarized in the Bill of Rights. That doesn't mean the people should get no say in their government whatsoever, though, and again, I'm trying to get out of you what you envision that would ensure native ascendancy. Given your stated preferred governmental system, however, I doubt it's going to be something I'd consider acceptable (the key there being "absolutist," not "lesbocracy," in case you're wondering).

You're not answering my question. Why would, say, requiring Native tribes have representation similar to that of states in Congress (2 senators, at least 1 representative) be unacceptably anti-majoritarian while the existence of the Senate is acceptably anti-majoritarian?

That could be done with a Constitutional amendment, first of all; dissolving the United States is gratuitous. Second, Native Americans can and do run for and win seats in Congress now; there are currently four sitting native Representatives, one of whom I've cited earlier in this thread. Third, how are these seats reserved for native representatives apportioned? Are we talking two Senators and some number of Representatives based on overall population for Native Americans as a whole, or such an apportionment for every extant tribe? If the former, sure, but that's a really widespread election with radically divergent interests among those party to it. If the latter, holy fuck, there are 570 federally recognized tribes; that would more than double the House of Representatives, nearly septuple the Senate, and land us with a minority legislature the likes of which the world has never seen, not to mention conferring total control of the Electoral College if the native nations are also conferred a number of Electors equal to their representatives as states are. If somewhere in between, how do you decide which tribes qualify?

My first instinct is to start workshopping the idea just to try to get a handle on it, but that would swing dangerously close to dictating what would be best for the native nations without any input from them, which I don't especially want to do. With that risk in mind, though, perhaps native representatives apportioned by region; southwest, plains, northeast, etc. I know that there are major cultural differences among tribes even in the same modern geographic region, though, and am cognizant of the classically British mistake of drawing up borders without regard to the groups living there, so I'll leave that to others. But it's not overall a bad plan, conceptually speaking. But again, it doesn't require the destruction of the United States.

[Effie]

I'm not envisioning anything; I'm asking what it is that you and your compatriots envision and provided a couple of possible examples. A despotism should be overthrown by whatever means is necessary and trying to establish one with almost no popular support is doomed to failure for obvious reasons; on the other hand, a republic is not going to be under the control of a tiny minority of its citizens (barring said tiny minority being ludicrously rich and corruption being rampant, of course). I'm generously presuming that's not what you're picturing, but trying to get what exactly you, Straha, and Loomer believe is going to ensure native ascendancy over a successor to the United States in any remotely plausible scenario.

If I were to eliminate non-majoritarian elements of the U.S. government, I'd start with the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 and its distorting effect on the selection of Electors. That said, the federal system isn't perfect, but it has its uses and isn't wildly undemocratic. Ethnostates by their nature are.

For the record, I'm not an absolute majoritarian; you may notice I'm not advocating for direct democracy, to start with. There are things the majority should not be able to vote into policy. Most of them are summarized in the Bill of Rights. That doesn't mean the people should get no say in their government whatsoever, though, and again, I'm trying to get out of you what you envision that would ensure native ascendancy. Given your stated preferred governmental system, however, I doubt it's going to be something I'd consider acceptable (the key there being "absolutist," not "lesbocracy," in case you're wondering).

You're not answering my question. Why would, say, requiring Native tribes have representation similar to that of states in Congress (2 senators, at least 1 representative) be unacceptably anti-majoritarian while the existence of the Senate is acceptably anti-majoritarian?

That could be done with a Constitutional amendment, first of all; dissolving the United States is gratuitous. Second, Native Americans can and do run for and win seats in Congress now; there are currently four sitting native Representatives, one of whom I've cited earlier in this thread. Third, how are these seats reserved for native representatives apportioned? Are we talking two Senators and some number of Representatives based on overall population for Native Americans as a whole, or such an apportionment for every extant tribe? If the former, sure, but that's a really widespread election with radically divergent interests among those party to it. If the latter, holy fuck, there are 570 federally recognized tribes; that would more than double the House of Representatives, nearly septuple the Senate, and land us with a minority legislature the likes of which the world has never seen, not to mention conferring total control of the Electoral College if the native nations are also conferred a number of Electors equal to their representatives as states are. If somewhere in between, how do you decide which tribes qualify?

My first instinct is to start workshopping the idea just to try to get a handle on it, but that would swing dangerously close to dictating what would be best for the native nations without any input from them, which I don't especially want to do. With that risk in mind, though, perhaps native representatives apportioned by region; southwest, plains, northeast, etc. I know that there are major cultural differences among tribes even in the same modern geographic region, though, and am cognizant of the classically British mistake of drawing up borders without regard to the groups living there, so I'll leave that to others. But it's not overall a bad plan, conceptually speaking. But again, it doesn't require the destruction of the United States.

So, the problem is that you're hung up on "dissolving" as if it has a well-defined meaning and then evaluating proposals based on whether they conform to the meaning, rather than examining the proposals first and then determining the kind of change that would be necessary to implement them and only then getting to the semantical argument about dissolution.

That said, this is not a serious proposal. It is rather an example of the kind of change I estimate might well satisfy conditions for decolonization- a total transformation of the United States into a federation of its various composed peoples from its current existence. So while in reality any such federation would have a lot fewer than 571-575 constituent members (because a substantial number of Native groups would almost certainly merge together politically in a situation like this) this is a napkin proposal of a means to offer Native groups a level of political power commensurate with the reality of their existing land titles and sovereignty without compromising overall democracy. The details aren't quite useful to argue over at this level.

[Rogue 9]

So, the problem is that you're hung up on "dissolving" as if it has a well-defined meaning and then evaluating proposals based on whether they conform to the meaning, rather than examining the proposals first and then determining the kind of change that would be necessary to implement them and only then getting to the semantical argument about dissolution.

Words have meanings. The United States doesn't have a parliamentary system, so you couldn't have meant dissolution in the sense of dissolving Parliament. Further, Loomer has made very clear that what he's proposing is the breakup of the country into dozens if not hundreds of tribal-based polities and Straha is clear that he means the destruction of the country, so forgive me if I addressed those proposals and kept on addressing them in the absence of a clearly proposed alternative.

But yes, I am quite willing to entertain the idea of reform, and to support a well thought out reform plan with a worthy and just goal. What I am not prepared to support is sacrificing the rights of the vast majority of the population or dismantling the country.

[loomer]

I would rephrase your first point as "All, or at least most, people are not innately evil and prefer justice to injustice, love to hate, kindness to cruelty, so long as this does not do serious harm to themselves or those they love." You have convinced me that your proposal implemented as you desire it to be implemented would not do serious harm to a large portion of the US population and so it is theoretically possible that it could be implemented by persuasion.

I'm not sure a reconfiguration is necessary. A serious harm not caused by self defence or the confiscation of directly stolen goods/etc (which even us decolonization advocates will happily admit isn't quite what the current land regimes represent) tends to render a proposed just settlement unjust; therefore, those who do not prefer justice because it would cause serious harm in fact prefer justice over injustice in the same way.

You have said this repeatedly but I don't understand how you intend this to work. To help me understand could you answer a couple of questions for me?

Do you intend the new states to be modern mass democracies? Yes or No?

If Yes, since the vast majority of people living in the new states (and thus the vast majority of voters) will not be indigenous either racially or culturally what will make the new states indigenous?

If No, how do you intend these new states to be governed and how will this government system guarantee their indigenous character?

The new states may take whatever form is appropriate, as negotiated and approved under the existing legislative and democratic processes, as far as I'm concerned. However, it is usually envisioned that yes, they will be largely modern mass democracies, with certain exceptions like specific Indigenous seats, an Indigenous affairs house of parliament/equivalent, and potentially legal pluralism as official policy. Other countries have also proposed this for African minorities, Asian minorities, etc, but I reject this for Australia on the basis that 'people of colour' are predominantly voluntary settlers here with the exception of the Kanakas. White Australians, bizarrely, have more claim to the conventional colonial minority narrative of the unwilling and oppressed slave labourers than do Vietnamese Australians or Afro-Australians, which is something of an aside but also the best weak spot in the colonial settler-state mentality of the White Australian.

The reason the emergent states may be referred to as Indigenous is that part of the process of decolonization is the process of Indigenization - essentially, while ethnically these states would be minority Indigenous, they will undergo a natural process of cultural shift and evolution that moves the Indigenous history, culture, and people away from the margins and into the center. I said earlier I would like to one day be able to call myself a Bundjalung whitefella, for instance - something that would entail knowing the history of my region's people before settlement, speaking Bundjalung as well as English, and being aware of (if not an active participant) in Bundjalung legal, spiritual, and culinary matters. Thus the emphasis of origin moves away from the settler-state - thus, the Australian-as-Briton, the American-as-Briton, the Canadian-as-Briton-or-French gives way to the Australian-as-Aboriginal.

It is this process - the recentering of the political and social discourse of the nation and the willing adoption of its legitimate languages and culture by its inhabitants - that guarantees the Indigenous character rather than any specific governmental system. However, I will also note that not only do many Indigenous decolonization activists view democracy as a legitimate route but there is also a building body of evidence suggesting that the experience and awareness of Indigenous democratic models (of various and often wildly non-western conception) fundamentally shaped the reception of and push for democracy in the settler-states - recognizing this (that democracy is not uniquely western nor something received solely from Europe by settlers and imposed on the Indigenous peoples) is itself part of the indigenization of democracy in the settler-states.

[loomer]

I said it upthread and I'll say it again; the best chance to render justice to the native nations, insofar as that's still possible, lies in changing the culture of the United States and impressing its inhabitants with the need to do so. And having done that, dissolving the United States is patently unnecessary; all you'd need is a couple of election cycles. Conversely, if you dissolve the United States having not done that, its successors are unlikely to be much better on that score.

Changing the culture to the degree necessary to break the settler-native-slave triad and achieve genuine justice through the redistribution of political power, economic resources, and social power will result in a United States so vastly different as to no longer be the United States, and it is naively optimistic to feel all it takes is a 'couple of election cycles'. It's funny being the one accusing someone else of being naive now, but there is no way what is necessary to achieve actual justice can be achieved within an 8-16 year cycle.

This makes me wonder: What do you define as an acceptable point at which to declare restitutions rendered and Indigenization achieved?

[Rogue 9]

I said it upthread and I'll say it again; the best chance to render justice to the native nations, insofar as that's still possible, lies in changing the culture of the United States and impressing its inhabitants with the need to do so. And having done that, dissolving the United States is patently unnecessary; all you'd need is a couple of election cycles. Conversely, if you dissolve the United States having not done that, its successors are unlikely to be much better on that score.

Changing the culture to the degree necessary to break the settler-native-slave triad and achieve genuine justice through the redistribution of political power, economic resources, and social power will result in a United States so vastly different as to no longer be the United States, and it is naively optimistic to feel all it takes is a 'couple of election cycles'. It's funny being the one accusing someone else of being naive now, but there is no way what is necessary to achieve actual justice can be achieved within an 8-16 year cycle.

Having changed the culture, the Congress will change with it. That's what I was saying. I'm not saying you could do it in a couple of election cycles now; you're talking about a very long project. Conversely, if you try to go ahead and break up the country without the consent of its population, you'll get nowhere.

This makes me wonder: What do you define as an acceptable point at which to declare restitutions rendered and Indigenization achieved?

Certainly well short of the point of dismantling the country in favor of a series of ethnostates. I'm not prepared to give a complete answer to that question, but to paraphrase Lincoln, far short of sinking all the continent's wealth and repaying every drop of blood with another drawn with the sword.

[loomer]

Certainly well short of the point of dismantling the country in favor of a series of ethnostates. I'm not prepared to give a complete answer to that question, but to paraphrase Lincoln, far short of sinking all the continent's wealth and repaying every drop of blood with another drawn with the sword.

And this right here tells me you haven't read a damn thing I've posted.

[Rogue 9]

Certainly well short of the point of dismantling the country in favor of a series of ethnostates. I'm not prepared to give a complete answer to that question, but to paraphrase Lincoln, far short of sinking all the continent's wealth and repaying every drop of blood with another drawn with the sword.

And this right here tells me you haven't read a damn thing I've posted.

Sure have. You started with this:

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

But very quickly went here:

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.

So you do in fact propose breaking up the United States, and if you want the shards to be ruled by the native nations, they must necessarily be ethnostates. QED.

[Starglider]

I said earlier I would like to one day be able to call myself a Bundjalung whitefella, for instance - something that would entail knowing the history of my region's people before settlement, speaking Bundjalung as well as English, and being aware of (if not an active participant) in Bundjalung legal, spiritual, and culinary matters.

That's an especially bizarre and twisted form of cultural appropriation. I can see your self-loathing has driven you beyond the pale of even the left liberal mainstream, into one of those close-knit bands of nuts that occassionally surface a screed on Counterpunch.

[loomer]

So you do in fact propose breaking up the United States, and if you want the shards to be ruled by the native nations, they must necessarily be ethnostates. QED.

Having repeatedly expressed ways that the resulting nations need not be ethnostates - and how such ethnostates in fact run contrary to the decolonization ethos - no, quod erat demonstrandum est non esse.

That's an especially bizarre and twisted form of cultural appropriation. I can see your self-loathing has driven you beyond the pale of even the left liberal mainstream, into one of those close-knit bands of nuts that occassionally surface a screed on Counterpunch.

It is no such thing, but it's interesting that you believe it is. What I propose presupposes that the conditions that render cultural appropriation appropriation rather than ordinary interchange - that it be conducted between groups of unequal footing and grant to the appropriator some form of social, economic or cultural prestige while being frowned on when enjoyed by its originators, often without the sanction of those appropriated from and often but not necessarily with either claims to 'improve it' or the misuse of sacred or otherwise restricted motifs, garbs, etc in inappropriate contexts - will end, and it is then possible to become a participant in the local culture. What I propose is a situation in which there is no stigma attached to the Indigenous culture and it is not marginalized - the preconditions for cultural appropriation. Instead, as part of the process of Indigenization, said culture and people are centred within the discourse. We might call it cultural appropriation in a different use of the word - appropriation not in the sense of theft or seizure, but rather, a process by which culture becomes appropriate.

Now, since we're at it, which of the following do you feel constitute cultural appropriation when carried out on a reasonably even footing, with the consent of local elders as part of a mutual exchange of culture:
* Learning the local language
* Learning the history of the place you live
* Developing an awareness of the local laws, including participation where appropriate and invited
* Developing an awareness of the local religions, including participation where appropriate and invited
* Developing an awareness of the local culinary traditions, including participation where appropriate and invited
* Identifying with the local nation-state of which you are a citizen

I also find it fascinating that you declare this a product of self-loathing. I am, perhaps strangely to you, actually a very proud Australian - proud enough, in fact, to want my nation to own up to what it's done and make good. I do not propose supplanting my existing culture or eradicating it, but rather broadening the horizons of being in the post-colonial post-Commonwealth landscape. I am proud enough in it, have enough faith in its strength and kindness, to know that it can tolerate being simply one culture among many without losing what made it worth being proud of to begin with - our ethos of mateship, of giving everyone a fair shake, of offering a hand to those that need it, and of self-sacrifice in the name of what is good and honest.

My desire, then, is not born out of shame or hate, but the opposite: It is born out of pride and love for my country.

[Darth Yan]

Native Americans are a minority. The only way they’d STAY predominantly native run is if they’re ethnostates. It’s why Israel has to deny right of return. If there are too many Arabs than the Arabs will have a lot of government positions and it just won’t be a Jewish state

With what you propose, if they aren’t ethnostates than inevitably they’ll be dominated by the non native majority. You literally sound like Israeli apologists when it’s pointed out how their state essentially uses apartheid and the best they can say is “nu uh”

That’s why we say you’re being naive. Population dynamics, the effects on the rest of the world, the fact that if the nation falls the resources won’t be fairly distributed mean that what you want is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. You can make some restitution (letting natives profit from the hydroelectric dams, actually honor more of the treaties) but full restoration. You’re an idiot of you think that’s ever going to occur.

[loomer]

Native Americans are a minority. The only way they’d STAY predominantly native run is if they’re ethnostates. It’s why Israel has to deny right of return. If there are too many Arabs than the Arabs will have a lot of government positions and it just won’t be a Jewish state

With what you propose, if they aren’t ethnostates than inevitably they’ll be dominated by the non native majority. You literally sound like Israeli apologists when it’s pointed out how their state essentially uses apartheid and the best they can say is “nu uh”

That’s why we say you’re being naive. Population dynamics, the effects on the rest of the world, the fact that if the nation falls the resources won’t be fairly distributed mean that what you want is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. You can make some restitution (letting natives profit from the hydroelectric dams, actually honor more of the treaties) but full restoration. You’re an idiot of you think that’s ever going to occur.

It must be tremendously convenient for you to ignore the entire concept of decolonization and indigenization for your argument. Be silent.

[Darth Yan]

No. That you’d rather engage in utopian daydreaming isn’t my problem.

[Zwinmar]

How would this work? I am directly descended from a guy that came over to the colonies in 1629. The family has married into natives several times since then.