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

[Straha]

I'm at a loss as to what Straha is trying to accomplish. If Trump is not an aberration, does that mean we shouldn't step up defense against institutionalized racism? We should just react as if Obama were still in the White House? If perfect is the enemy of good, and America will never be perfect, we should stop trying to make it good?

This is the reaction that truly baffles me, on a fundamental I don't know how one goes from "The United States is a racist nation-state" to "I guess that means we shouldn't do anything?" That move to passivity and acceptance is one that flummoxes me because I don't understand how one takes acceptance from this message.

The answer I proffer can be understood as a two-fold message:

First, it means that we can't position opposition to Trump inside the American political system, such as it is. We have to position the system itself as something that needs to be dismantled and torn down. (And, yes, tactical moments like voting for his opponent if you live in a swing-state are probably good things, but those have to be seen as damage mitigation and not as ends in and of themselves.)

Second, it means that we have to try and create a new, better, politics and political system that transcends the ones we have now. I have a series of hopes and demands here, but on a fundamental level decolonization and repatriation of land coupled with reparations are goals that I think need to be embraced.

Frankly, I don't think of my politics as pessimistic, nor do I think they strive for perfection. I think realist embraces of imperial power, or pseudo-machiavellian political machinations that try to say that what we have is good enough are pessimistic. My politics is one of deep hope, coupled with a recognition that sacrifices and, inevitably, compromises will be made on the way.

It feels like Staha has stepped into a moment when more Americans than ever might have been willing to learn what he has to say, and just chastised us all for not having always felt the rage. Instead of putting us to purpose he is antagonizing the closest thing he has to allies (yes, closest, despite the bottomless contempt he no doubt feels for everyone not as enlightened as himself).

I think you presume potential ally status without reflecting on what that means. Let's flip this question on its head for a moment:

What would it take to convince you that the (White) Settler is an illegitimate presence in North America, and that the United States must be dismantled? Seriously, you tell me the tack to take on this question for people 'like you' and I'll listen.

[The Romulan Republic]

I kind of feel like we've gotten off the original topic, and that the discussion has unfortunately become buried in mudslinging, defensiveness, and nitpicking. So let's see if we can get this back to the point:

I think we can all agree that there is a deep and continuing history of vicious racism, including slavery and genocide of indigenous peoples, in the United States (and Canada, Australia, etc.), and that this has to a significant extent shaped the country as it is today.

I think we can all agree that fundamental changes have to occur to address this.

I think (hope) we all agree that dismantling the entire nation, or placing the entire populace under First Nations authority is not something that will happen voluntarily in the foreseeable future for any number of reasons (including and especially, yes, white racism), and that to do it by force would lead to catastrophic loss of life and global ruin, which would likely disproportionately effect the poor and minorities.

As I noted previously in response to Straha's arguments, the Constitution of the United States does provide a legal mechanism for sweeping, fundamental reforms to the nation's legal, political, and economic structure: a Constitutional Convention. If enough states call for one, it will be automatically triggered, and we are actually closer to this point than a lot of people realize. This is a fairly scary though, given what the Trumpers would use such a convention to try to force on the nation right now, but a time might come (either a moment of national crisis, or one of progressive strength) where a Constitutional Convention becomes the best course forward.

This to me seems the most viable path forward, and the most worthwhile idea to come out of this thread. Does anyone disagree with this position? And if so, on what grounds?

[loomer]

I'm at a loss as to what Straha is trying to accomplish. If Trump is not an aberration, does that mean we shouldn't step up defense against institutionalized racism? We should just react as if Obama were still in the White House? If perfect is the enemy of good, and America will never be perfect, we should stop trying to make it good?

This is the most galaxy brained take of all. It isn't even remotely open as a logical conclusion of the positions Straha has been espousing, and it says a tremendous amount about you that you think 'the settler colonial project is inherently racist, and Trump is not an aberration but an expression of systemic issues' translates in any way to 'so don't bother fixing it'.

It feels like Staha has stepped into a moment when more Americans than ever might have been willing to learn what he has to say, and just chastised us all for not having always felt the rage. Instead of putting us to purpose he is antagonizing the closest thing he has to allies (yes, closest, despite the bottomless contempt he no doubt feels for everyone not as enlightened as himself).

You know, it's funny. I didn't see you in here responding to the actual antagonism being expressed, which has been almost purely initiated from the anti-decolonization side of things. I didn't see you, for instance, responding to Broomstick's shocking outburst or the screams of 'faux-progressive!' from TRR. You reserve your censure for the anti-racist side. Why is that?

He's not wrong, though. If you walk around browbeating people, you should not be surprised if they don't particularly care to listen to what you have to say.

Let's consider the terminology issue again. Would you consider 'settler moves to innocence' particularly inflammatory on its own? I doubt it - what makes these discussions 'browbeating' is nothing to do with tone, but everything to do with the fact they challenge the existing narrative of 'America is mostly good'. It's the same reason we've seen TRR scream about faux-progressives and people hating America, Broomstick accuse me of being ashamed to be of mixed heritage and of hating America, etc. These ideas are challenging to the narrative - it is this, not their form of expression, that makes them 'browbeating'.

[loomer]

I think (hope) we all agree that dismantling the entire nation, or placing the entire populace under First Nations authority is not something that will happen voluntarily in the foreseeable future for any number of reasons (including and especially, yes, white racism), and that to do it by force would lead to catastrophic loss of life and global ruin, which would likely disproportionately effect the poor and minorities.

Why is it you felt the need to include the 'doing it by force would be bad' clause when no decolonization advocate is pushing for such a thing? Why is it you felt the need to talk about placing the entire populace under Indigenous control, when this too is not what has been proposed? No - I don't think we can really agree when you talk about shit we aren't arguing for.

[The Romulan Republic]

Because those ideas have been a part of this discussion, and because in trying to summarize the debate, I am trying to establish the context in which any solution must take place.

Of course, your question is entirely rhetorical. It is mean to continue your insinuations that I am advocating for racism, in order to discredit my arguments by ad hominem.

I'm at a loss as to what Straha is trying to accomplish. If Trump is not an aberration, does that mean we shouldn't step up defense against institutionalized racism? We should just react as if Obama were still in the White House? If perfect is the enemy of good, and America will never be perfect, we should stop trying to make it good?

This is the most galaxy brained take of all. It isn't even remotely open as a logical conclusion of the positions Straha has been espousing, and it says a tremendous amount about you that you think 'the settler colonial project is inherently racist, and Trump is not an aberration but an expression of systemic issues' translates in any way to 'so don't bother fixing it'.

It feels like Staha has stepped into a moment when more Americans than ever might have been willing to learn what he has to say, and just chastised us all for not having always felt the rage. Instead of putting us to purpose he is antagonizing the closest thing he has to allies (yes, closest, despite the bottomless contempt he no doubt feels for everyone not as enlightened as himself).

You know, it's funny. I didn't see you in here responding to the actual antagonism being expressed, which has been almost purely initiated from the anti-decolonization side of things. I didn't see you, for instance, responding to Broomstick's shocking outburst or the screams of 'faux-progressive!' from TRR. You reserve your censure for the anti-racist side. Why is that?

He's not wrong, though. If you walk around browbeating people, you should not be surprised if they don't particularly care to listen to what you have to say.

Let's consider the terminology issue again. Would you consider 'settler moves to innocence' particularly inflammatory on its own? I doubt it - what makes these discussions 'browbeating' is nothing to do with tone, but everything to do with the fact they challenge the existing narrative of 'America is mostly good'. It's the same reason we've seen TRR scream about faux-progressives and people hating America, Broomstick accuse me of being ashamed to be of mixed heritage and of hating America, etc. These ideas are challenging to the narrative - it is this, not their form of expression, that makes them 'browbeating'.

I love how you tacitly place me on the opposite side from the anti-racists (ie, on the side of the racists), despite much of my posting on this board being arguments against racism in contemporary America, simply because I don't hate America hard enough for you. But hey, who gives a dog's fucking dick about facts? If engaging in a systematic campaign to brand me a supporter of racism will help you win a debate, then that's fair game on this board.

And now apparently you're expanding from smearing me as a racist, to smearing anyone who doesn't join in denouncing me as a racist. In other words, trying to guilt people into joining a campaign of dog-piling and harrassment against me, you fucking coward.

[The Romulan Republic]

I will add that placing me on the "anti-decolonization side" is a LIE, and I will treat it as such, and you as the liar and the vermin that you are. You have conflated a difference in rhetoric and perhaps tactics with fundamental opposition the goal of decolonization.

[loomer]

Because those ideas have been a part of this discussion, and because in trying to summarize the debate, I am trying to establish the context in which any solution must take place.

Of course, your question is entirely rhetorical. It is mean to continue your insinuations that I am advocating for racism, in order to discredit my arguments by ad hominem.

I have made no such insinuations. I question why you feel the need to include ideas that have not been proposed and have been thoroughly debunked as some kind of common ground, when they have in fact been used to discredit and strawman the position of the decolonization advocates in this thread.

I love how you tacitly place me on the opposite side from the anti-racists (ie, on the side of the racists), despite much of my posting on this board being arguments against racism in contemporary America, simply because I don't hate America hard enough for you. But hey, who gives a dog's fucking dick about facts? If engaging in a systematic campaign to brand me a supporter of racism will help you win a debate, then that's fair game on this board.

What systematic campaign? I referred to your remarks about Straha being a 'faux-progressive' who '[admires] Trump because... all of America is equally evil, but at least Trump is... honest' as being hostile to decolonization and antagonistic, which is fact, and identify Straha, Effie and myself as anti-racist posters, which is also a fact. That you interpret this as a systematic campaign to brand you as a supporter of racism is delusional, absurd, and unfounded.

And now apparently you're expanding from smearing me as a racist, to smearing anyone who doesn't join in denouncing me as a racist. In other words, trying to guilt people into joining a campaign of dog-piling and harrassment against me, you fucking coward.

I'm doing no such thing, and you need to turn the dial on your paranoid histrionics down from 11 to, preferably, 0. If 0 is too low, perhaps you could try 2 or 3 to start. Not only am I not 'smearing you as a racist', but I'm also not smearing Bob as one for not denouncing you, but questioning why his appeal to decorum has been reserved for the anti-racist side.

You like to screech about libel. Perhaps, given your strong feelings about libel being bad, you might like to refrain from posting wild paranoiac fantasies about my posts.

I will add that placing me on the "anti-decolonization side" is a LIE, and I will treat it as such, and you as the liar and the vermin that you are. You have conflated a difference in rhetoric and perhaps tactics with fundamental opposition the goal of decolonization.

Speaking of antagonism... Tell me, TRR, do you agree that the US, Canada, Australia et al are fundamentally unjust nations that need to be dissolved as soon as safely practicable, with full restoration of Indigenous sovereignty wherever possible and the indigenization and de-Whitening of the Settler populations?

[The Romulan Republic]

I was outright accused in this thread of just wanting to keep the quiet part quiet in regard to racism, and not caring about the rest (among other things). If that isn't portraying me as sympathetic to racism, I don't know what it is. Likewise, you criticized another poster for not joining in denouncing me. To me, that smacks of encouraging dog-piling.

As to your closing questions, I agree that the US, Canada, Australia, etc. are, as they are currently structured, fundamentally unjust nations.

Before I give an answer on the rest, I would like you to clarify, as simply and directly as possible, what you mean by the terms "dissolved", "Indigenous sovereignty", and "de-Whitening". Each of those terms could have multiple meanings, and my answers could vary wildly depending on which one you are using.

[loomer]

I was outright accused in this thread of just wanting to keep the quiet part quiet in regard to racism, and not caring about the rest (among other things). If that isn't portraying me as sympathetic to racism, I don't know what it is. Likewise, you criticized another poster for not joining in denouncing me. To me, that smacks of encouraging dog-piling.

Please demonstrate where I have done so. Perhaps you wrongly impute a hive mind to myself and Straha, and assume we are acting in concert rather than as independent actors with similar beliefs. Further, please identify where the criticism of Bob was about not 'joining in denouncing you' rather than as to their bias regarding which side should be held to decorum and criticized for antagonism?

I agree that the US, Canada, Australia, etc. are, as they are currently structured, fundamentally unjust nations.

Before I give an answer on the rest, I would like you to clarify, as simply and directly as possible, what you mean by the terms "dissolved", "Indigenous sovereignty", and "de-Whitening". Each of those terms could have multiple meanings, and my answers could vary wildly depending on which one you are using.

Have you considered reading the thread where all but the last have been discussed? Perhaps reading the literature?

No, of course not. That would take effort. But for the sake of convenience I will give you the following definitions:
Dissolved: To cease to be; to be dismantled; to end. In this case, said dissolution is prefigured on a democratic consensus that this is appropriate.
Indigenous sovereignty: Recognizing the Indigenous nations as legitimate and genuine nations, with all the usual powers attached to a sovereign state, such as (but not limited to) the right to legislate, to control their territory, to determine economic policy, to grant citizenship, and to control the use of land within their borders.
De-Whitening: The process by which Whiteness as a constructed identity is dissolved, thereby ending the hegemony of the Settler as the 'mainstream' against whom differences are measured. In the context of Settlers, this means restoring genuine national identities - e.g., in my case, I refer to myself as, and work to identify internally as, an Anglo-Australian, not a White Australian.

[Straha]

Of course, your question is entirely rhetorical. It is mean to continue your insinuations that I am advocating for racism, in order to discredit my arguments by ad hominem.

Look, as just a starting point. Nobody, at any point, at any time in this thread has used an ad hom against you. You have conflated ad hominem with insult. Using the phrase ad hominem isn't just annoying and wrong, but it makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about while also making a dishonest accusation about the people you're talking to.

I love how you tacitly place me on the opposite side from the anti-racists (ie, on the side of the racists), despite much of my posting on this board being arguments against racism in contemporary America, simply because I don't hate America hard enough for you. But hey, who gives a dog's fucking dick about facts? If engaging in a systematic campaign to brand me a supporter of racism will help you win a debate, then that's fair game on this board.

Okay, so I think you don't get what's going on here on a real ground level. The argument that has been advanced is that the United States isn't 'just' racist, it is that the United States is structurally racist. It sits on land that it claimed via ethnic cleansing, it maintains reservations that were and are concentration camps and are sites of acts of genocide, it has enriched itself via the forced labor of a racial underclass, and it structurally maintains that racial underclass through a variety of overt and passive means. That structural racism doesn't just shape the lived experiences of those inside it, but also shapes the political landscape including the discourse being used by people and politicians.

This means that passivity or acceptance of these structures, including the occupation of stolen land, stolen labor, etc. is something that supports that racist structuring of the United States. Importantly, this means that if someone operating inside those structures attacks avowed or vocal racists (e.g. Trump) it is acknowledged that they may be opposing an instance of racism but importantly it does not make them anti-racist. An anti-racist politics cannot operate inside those structures but must on a fundamental level oppose the very structures themselves.

This is important viz-a-viz you because it means that you are not being called racist, per se. It is indeed entirely possible that you are not racist in your personal views. But simply being 'not racist' inside a racist structure that you do not oppose means A. you are not advocating an anti-racist politics and B. by supporting those institutions you are actually supporting a racist structure.

As such, you're not being lumped in with Trump. Everyone in this thread thinks there's plenty of daylight between your stances and his. What is being said is that your knee-jerk defense of the legitimacy of the United States and the vitriol launched at people who attack it are problematic and help support that racist super-structure. It also means that if you want to actually claim to be an anti-racist that plenty of your rhetoric is, at best, counter-productive. (For instance, when you try and make a distinction between public and private racism in the realm of policy-making.)

If you want a good perspective on this, I really recommend reading MLK Jr.'s letter from a Birmingham jail.

I would also stress that this isn't a 'hate America' kind of thing. On a fundamental level, like I said above, this is a truly optimistic and hopeful politics towards America. It believes that the people inside it can strive to undo an act of great injustice and seek to make the world a fundamentally better place. If you think believing in the American people like that somehow translates to hatred... well... I don't know what to tell you.

And now apparently you're expanding from smearing me as a racist, to smearing anyone who doesn't join in denouncing me as a racist. In other words, trying to guilt people into joining a campaign of dog-piling and harrassment against me, you fucking coward.

Just, as a point of order, if he's doing it to your face he's by definition not a coward. The entire rest of your argument is patently silly and comes across as a tantrum, but making that the conclusion is just, well, absurd.

[loomer]

Building on Straha's last point there, if I were inclined to call you a racist, I'd probably just call you a racist directly. Perhaps in bold red letters. Just, you know, throwing that out there. The idea that I'm somehow too afraid to do so is silly, since I haven't done so because I don't actually think you are one, TRR.

[Straha]

Building on Straha's last point there, if I were inclined to call you a racist, I'd probably just call you a racist directly. Perhaps in bold red letters. Just, you know, throwing that out there. The idea that I'm somehow too afraid to do so is silly, since I haven't done so because I don't actually think you are one, TRR.

I mean, shit. It's not like there haven't been narrow, but pointed, discussions of racism expressed in posts in this thread and plenty of discussion of racist rhetoric that has been used. If we're going to call something racist you'll know it.

[The Romulan Republic]

I feel that some of the characterizations of my posts have, at least, implied that I am a racist. You say that was not your intent. I'm willing to let it go here if you are, because the actual topic is more worth discussing than our mudslinging.

I agree that the US, Canada, Australia, etc. are, as they are currently structured, fundamentally unjust nations.

Before I give an answer on the rest, I would like you to clarify, as simply and directly as possible, what you mean by the terms "dissolved", "Indigenous sovereignty", and "de-Whitening". Each of those terms could have multiple meanings, and my answers could vary wildly depending on which one you are using.

Have you considered reading the thread where all but the last have been discussed? Perhaps reading the literature?

No, of course not. That would take effort. But for the sake of convenience I will give you the following definitions:

It is difficult, not to mention exhausting, to parse a lengthy thread such as this to weed out the substance from the mudslinging and nitpicking. Nor do I frankly have the time right now for an in-depth academic study of the topic before replying to this thread, though I fully acknowledge it is one that would be worth pursuing. Hence my summary and my questions, in an attempt to cut through the chaff and get to the substance at the core of the argument.

As to your questions:

Dissolved: To cease to be; to be dismantled; to end. In this case, said dissolution is prefigured on a democratic consensus that this is appropriate.

This still doesn't address my fundamental question: do you mean to dissolve the existing legal, political and economic structure of the nation and replace it with another of fundamentally different political structure but comprising more or less the same geographic boundaries and populace, or do you mean to physically alter its boundaries, dividing it into a collection of ethnic micro-states? Those are two fundamentally different actions, and I would be far more open to the former than to the latter.

I am fundamentally opposed to the further political subdivision of the planet, and to ethnic nationalism (or nationalism of any variety), for reasons I will elaborate on shortly. So I would entertain the creation of a fundamentally different nation within the same geographic boundaries as the current US, Canada, etc, but not the subdivision of the nations into racially-based micro-states.

I will also add that to divide a nation such as America in such a manner without ethnic cleansing or despotism would be impossible, regardless of whether you say that is what you are advocating, for reasons I will get into shortly.

Indigenous sovereignty: Recognizing the Indigenous nations as legitimate and genuine nations, with all the usual powers attached to a sovereign state, such as (but not limited to) the right to legislate, to control their territory, to determine economic policy, to grant citizenship, and to control the use of land within their borders.

It would appear, then, that you do in fact consider the only acceptable solution to colonialism to the be in fact the dissolution of the US, Canada, Australia, etc into many separate nation states, each ruled by a particular racial or ethnic group.

In that case, I must voice my opposition in the strongest possible terms. Not only would this contradict my political values as an advocate of greater global unity and multiculturalism, but more importantly, it would be utterly impossible to implement without some form of despotism and ethnic cleansing.

To return the bulk of a nation such as the United States to First Nations rule, and to maintain that rule, would require either the destruction or forced expulsion of the majority of the populace (not just whites but blacks, latinos, etc.) in many places in order to maintain a majority Indigenous government, or else laws that would disenfranchise the non-indigenous majority. This is nothing unique to the Americas or hypothetical indigenous states- it is impossible to maintain any ethnicity-based nation state in the modern world without taking despotic actions to ensure that one ethnicity remains the majority, or other ethnicities are disenfranchised (see Israel for an example of this in action).

In short, maintaining ethnic nation states is not possible in the highly interconnected, multi-cultural modern world without racism and despotism.

De-Whitening: The process by which Whiteness as a constructed identity is dissolved, thereby ending the hegemony of the Settler as the 'mainstream' against whom differences are measured. In the context of Settlers, this means restoring genuine national identities - e.g., in my case, I refer to myself as, and work to identify internally as, an Anglo-Australian, not a White Australian.

The repudiation of Whiteness as a cultural identity is something I support. The replacement of it with nationalist identities is not. Nationalism has been one of the great plagues on human kind for the last few centuries, and it has long been closely intertwined with racism.

Your argument is not progressive- it resembles more a desire to turn the clock back to the ethno-nationalism of the 19th. Century, the same ethno-nationalism that gave rise to World War I and thence to Nazism. It is a failed idea, intrinsically tied to racism, and I reject it without reservation.

Finally, I would ask you to demonstrate that the dissolution of the US, Canada, Australia etc., to be replaced with entirely independent ethnic micro-states, is something that the majority of the Indigenous population actually wants, as opposed to something that you are deciding is best for them. Perhaps that is the case, but if so, I feel that it is on you to demonstrate it.

[loomer]

Dissolved: To cease to be; to be dismantled; to end. In this case, said dissolution is prefigured on a democratic consensus that this is appropriate.

This still doesn't address my fundamental question: do you mean to dissolve the existing legal, political and economic structure of the nation and replace it with another of fundamentally different political structure but comprising more or less the same geographic boundaries and populace, or do you mean to physically alter its boundaries, dividing it into a collection of ethnic micro-states? Those are two fundamentally different actions, and I would be far more open to the former than to the latter.

Read the thread. This has been extensively debated and I will not entertain it further because of your stated unwillingness to actually do the reading.

I am fundamentally opposed to the further political subdivision of the planet, and to ethnic nationalism (or nationalism of any variety), for reasons I will elaborate on shortly. So I would entertain the creation of a fundamentally different nation within the same geographic boundaries as the current US, Canada, etc, but not the subdivision of the nations into racially-based micro-states.

I will also add that to divide a nation such as America in such a manner without ethnic cleansing or despotism would be impossible, regardless of whether you say that is what you are advocating, for reasons I will get into shortly.

Indigenous sovereignty: Recognizing the Indigenous nations as legitimate and genuine nations, with all the usual powers attached to a sovereign state, such as (but not limited to) the right to legislate, to control their territory, to determine economic policy, to grant citizenship, and to control the use of land within their borders.

It would appear, then, that you do in fact consider the only acceptable solution to colonialism to the be in fact the dissolution of the US, Canada, Australia, etc into many separate nation states, each ruled by a particular racial or ethnic group.

The ethnostate fallacy has been addressed. Read the thread. Further, if you do not desire the restoration of Indigenous sovereignty, you are not on the side of decolonization.

In that case, I must voice my opposition in the strongest possible terms. Not only would this contradict my political values as an advocate of greater global unity and multiculturalism, but more importantly, it would be utterly impossible to implement without some form of despotism and ethnic cleansing.

To return the bulk of a nation such as the United States to First Nations rule, and to maintain that rule, would require either the destruction or forced expulsion of the majority of the populace (not just whites but blacks, latinos, etc.) in many places in order to maintain a majority Indigenous government, or else laws that would disenfranchise the non-indigenous majority. This is nothing unique to the Americas or hypothetical indigenous states- it is impossible to maintain any ethnicity-based nation state in the modern world without taking despotic actions to ensure that one ethnicity remains the majority, or other ethnicities are disenfranchised (see Israel for an example of this in action).

In short, maintaining ethnic nation states is not possible in the highly interconnected, multi-cultural modern world without racism and despotism.

This has been addressed. Read the thread.

De-Whitening: The process by which Whiteness as a constructed identity is dissolved, thereby ending the hegemony of the Settler as the 'mainstream' against whom differences are measured. In the context of Settlers, this means restoring genuine national identities - e.g., in my case, I refer to myself as, and work to identify internally as, an Anglo-Australian, not a White Australian.

The repudiation of Whiteness as a cultural identity is something I support. The replacement of it with nationalist identities is not. Nationalism has been one of the great plagues on human kind for the last few centuries, and it has long been closely intertwined with racism.[/quote]

National identities are not the same as nationalist identities. 0/10.

Your argument is not progressive- it resembles more a desire to turn the clock back to the ethno-nationalism of the 19th. Century, the same ethno-nationalism that gave rise to World War I and thence to Nazism. It is a failed idea, intrinsically tied to racism, and I reject it without reservation.

Ethnonationalism is not what is proposed, and neither is racism. Read the thread. Your argumentum ad Hitlerum is noted and rejected.

Finally, I would ask you to demonstrate that the dissolution of the US, Canada, Australia etc., to be replaced with entirely independent ethnic micro-states, is something that the majority of the Indigenous population actually wants, as opposed to something that you are deciding is best for them. Perhaps that is the case, but if so, I feel that it is on you to demonstrate it.

This has not been asserted in my posts - only that it is the decolonization ethos. I am unaware of any formal studies that would demonstrate what you desire. Further, I am not 'deciding [what] is best' for anyone - I follow the lead of decolonization scholars like Fanon, Moreton-Robinson, Tuck, Yang, etc, and propose a democratic approach that allows each person to decide what is best.

[The Romulan Republic]

You appear to be insisting that there is only one possible valid way to address the crimes of colonialism (to divide the US and other countries into a multitude of sovereign states under indigenous rule, regardless of whether this is what the indigenous population currently wants), and that anyone who disagrees is therefore anti-decolonization. This strikes me as, at best, highly oversimplified and frankly arrogant. You say you support a democratic approach, with which I agree, but at the same time you insist that only one extreme course of action, which will not gain majority support in any foreseeable future, is an acceptable outcome.

Most strikingly, you have by your own admission no evidence that your position is supported by the majority of the Indigenous populace, but nonetheless insist that it is the only acceptable outcome under the "decolonization ethos". This shows a frankly shocking disregard for the actual wishes of the populace you wish to liberate from the abuses of colonialism. Moreover, unless you are yourself indigenous, then you are attempting as an outsider to impose what you believe to be right for indigenous populations upon them without regard for their wishes- and that is the very essence of cultural imperialism.

Also, just saying some variation of "You're wrong" is not a rebuttal.

I think, to be frank, that while you are arguing from a position of high ideals (and I mean that as a compliment), there are some deep contradictions in your position which you have not fully acknowledged.

[The Romulan Republic]

Okay, so I think you don't get what's going on here on a real ground level. The argument that has been advanced is that the United States isn't 'just' racist, it is that the United States is structurally racist. It sits on land that it claimed via ethnic cleansing, it maintains reservations that were and are concentration camps and are sites of acts of genocide, it has enriched itself via the forced labor of a racial underclass, and it structurally maintains that racial underclass through a variety of overt and passive means. That structural racism doesn't just shape the lived experiences of those inside it, but also shapes the political landscape including the discourse being used by people and politicians.

This means that passivity or acceptance of these structures, including the occupation of stolen land, stolen labor, etc. is something that supports that racist structuring of the United States. Importantly, this means that if someone operating inside those structures attacks avowed or vocal racists (e.g. Trump) it is acknowledged that they may be opposing an instance of racism but importantly it does not make them anti-racist. An anti-racist politics cannot operate inside those structures but must on a fundamental level oppose the very structures themselves.

To clarify, are you suggesting that one can only be anti-racist if one acts completely outside the legal and political process?

Other than that, I agree with everything you just said. Where we differ is in the details of how we feel the problem can best be addressed.

This is important viz-a-viz you because it means that you are not being called racist, per se. It is indeed entirely possible that you are not racist in your personal views. But simply being 'not racist' inside a racist structure that you do not oppose means A. you are not advocating an anti-racist politics and B. by supporting those institutions you are actually supporting a racist structure.

I am racist in the sense that every or nearly every person on this planet is racist- I am capable of bias, and must work consciously to be aware of and overcome it. I do not knowingly or intentionally condone or defend racism, and I am willing to reevaluate my views where the evidence warrants it.

Where I believe you are mistaken is in thinking that I simply support the continuation of the current structure of the United States/Canada/etc. My views are more complicated than that. I believe that certain aspects of the American political and legal system have merit, but I also recognize that there are others that are profoundly evil. I do not believe that every aspect of the American legal and political system should be reflexively thrown out as racist, much as, for example, I do not believe that we should de-orbit our entire global satalite network and destroy all space research and technology because a lot of the early NASA scientists were ex-Nazis, or that we should completely destroy various modern languages because misogyny is deeply ingrained in our vocabulary, or that we should destroy works of art inspired by Christian mythology because that mythology is profoundly bigoted and despotic on many points. And no, I'm not saying you advocate any of those things either- I am using an analogy to explain why I do not feel that the US system of government must be discarded whole-cloth. Ultimately, all ideas and developments in history are interconnected, all of them build on a history that contains both good and evil, and an idea should generally be judged on its merits and benefits, not simply on association.

I also reject the notion (though I'm not sure whether it is one you are advocating) that one can only be anti-racist if one acts completely outside the legal and political system. I believe that fundamental reform through the legal and political process (such as a Constitutional Convention) is possible, and overall preferable to a chaotic, extra-legal breakdown of the country that would likely result in mass violence (of which the victims would almost certainly be disproportionately racial minorities).

As such, you're not being lumped in with Trump. Everyone in this thread thinks there's plenty of daylight between your stances and his. What is being said is that your knee-jerk defense of the legitimacy of the United States and the vitriol launched at people who attack it are problematic and help support that racist super-structure. It also means that if you want to actually claim to be an anti-racist that plenty of your rhetoric is, at best, counter-productive. (For instance, when you try and make a distinction between public and private racism in the realm of policy-making.)

I condone neither, but I regard the former as generally more damaging, because it legitimizes racism as acceptable in the public sphere, and directly exposes its targets to public hatred and discrimination.

As to the United States' "legitimacy", I regard it as fundamentally no more or less legitimate than any other nation on Earth. Nations are human constructs, usually built with at least some degree of treachery, corruption and violence, and to my mind they have no inherent right to exist, nor any objective value- they are worth preserving only insofar and as long as they benefit the populace.

I regard the US as "legitimate" insofar as I believe that its total dissolution into separate countries (as opposed to a fundamental reformation of its political, legal, and economic structure), or the total abandonment of its political and legal system (as opposed to reform through political and legal channels) would inflict more harm than benefit to the populace under any plausible, foreseeable scenario.

I think perhaps you, like many on this board, have somewhat misconstrued my position. I am not arguing from the perspective of an American nationalist when I oppose the dissolution of the United States. I am arguing from the position of an anti-nationalist globalist, and of someone who believes in political and legal solutions as a better alternative to violent ones. Agree with my views or not, lets at least get it right.

If we're going to be damned, let us be damned for what we really are.

If you want a good perspective on this, I really recommend reading MLK Jr.'s letter from a Birmingham jail.

I would also stress that this isn't a 'hate America' kind of thing. On a fundamental level, like I said above, this is a truly optimistic and hopeful politics towards America. It believes that the people inside it can strive to undo an act of great injustice and seek to make the world a fundamentally better place. If you think believing in the American people like that somehow translates to hatred... well... I don't know what to tell you.

That seems somewhat to be twisting my words. I have already said that I believe a Constitutional Convention to fundamentally rewrite the political, legal, and economic structure of the American nation could be a possible, beneficial and even necessary course of action in the future.

[loomer]

You appear to be insisting that there is only one possible valid way to address the crimes of colonialism (to divide the US and other countries into a multitude of sovereign states under indigenous rule, regardless of whether this is what the indigenous population currently wants), and that anyone who disagrees is therefore anti-decolonization.

This strikes me as, at best, highly oversimplified and frankly arrogant. You say you support a democratic approach, with which I agree, but at the same time you insist that only one extreme course of action, which will not gain majority support in any foreseeable future, is an acceptable outcome.

Decolonization is a specific field of theory, TRR, not just a buzzword. It fundamentally posits, when used in the context of settler-colonialism, the restoration of Indigenous sovereignty as a central goal. So, quite simply: If you disagree, you are not on the side of decolonization.

Most strikingly, you have by your own admission no evidence that your position is supported by the majority of the Indigenous populace, but nonetheless insist that it is the only acceptable outcome under the "decolonization ethos".

I have no formal evidence, only my own experience in which the goals are endorsed by the majority of Indigenous people I have heard speak on the issue and its related issues. This is why I specified that there is no formal study that accomplishes what you asked for - but I also point out to you that I have not made a claim to the contrary. You have asked me to defend a position I have not taken and provide proof for a claim I have not made.

This shows a frankly shocking disregard for the actual wishes of the populace you wish to liberate from the abuses of colonialism.

Now this, this is very telling. You view decolonization as something for the Indigenous alone - but decolonization is also for the Settler. It is for me as much as for my goori neighbour. I am fortunate enough to inhabit a position of relative privilege, but the scope of my humanity is limited in the settler-colonial state, and I wish to make good on the promise of my national ethos of mateship to those around me not just for their sake, but for my own.

I quote now Lilla Watson, a Gangulu scholar, artist and epistemologist, and the Aboriginal activists group she was involved in in Queensland in the 1970s. "If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together. "

Moreover, unless you are yourself indigenous, then you are attempting as an outsider to impose what you believe to be right for indigenous populations upon them without regard for their wishes- and that is the very essence of cultural imperialism.

The issue of my ancestry has already been discussed, but see above - decolonization is not, as you seem to believe, some kind of gift for the Indigenous peoples. It is not something to be undertaken solely for their benefit, but for everyone's benefit. Settlers are stakeholders in the process.

I note also that you seem to be taking the view that to simply advocate for decolonization is cultural imperialism, and that the works of the Indigenous scholars I referenced - perhaps you were unaware, but three of the four names I mentioned were/are of Indigenous descent - should not be considered as representing the wishes of any Indigenous peoples. Both of these proposals are, bluntly, incorrect.

Also, just saying some variation of "You're wrong" is not a rebuttal.

It is when you make a basic error of fact. For instance, a national identity does not posit any kind of nationalism other than the existence of nations in and of themselves (and while, as an anarchist, I support the dissolution of all nations that is another matter). You wish to read it as such, but let me ask you: Do you not call yourself an American? Is that not a national identity?

I think, to be frank, that while you are arguing from a position of high ideals (and I mean that as a compliment), there are some deep contradictions in your position which you have not fully acknowledged.

By all means, list them and if I haven't already addressed them, I may do so.

[The Romulan Republic]

Decolonization is a specific field of theory, TRR, not just a buzzword. It fundamentally posits, when used in the context of settler-colonialism, the restoration of Indigenous sovereignty as a central goal. So, quite simply: If you disagree, you are not on the side of decolonization.

Alright. But the terminology is nonetheless loaded- saying "you're against decolonization" can certainly sound like an implication that the person is therefore pro-colonization.

I have no formal evidence, only my own experience in which the goals are endorsed by the majority of Indigenous people I have heard speak on the issue and its related issues. This is why I specified that there is no formal study that accomplishes what you asked for - but I also point out to you that I have not made a claim to the contrary. You have asked me to defend a position I have not taken and provide proof for a claim I have not made.

I'm not saying you made that claim- I am saying that if you want to argue that your position would reverse centuries of racial injustice and imperialism, it is important that you take the wishes of the people being liberated into account if you don't want to come off as a raging hypocrite.

This also strikes me, frankly, as a subject on which a formal study should absolutely be done, now, if none already exists.

Now this, this is very telling. You view decolonization as something for the Indigenous alone - but decolonization is also for the Settler. It is for me as much as for my goori neighbour. I am fortunate enough to inhabit a position of relative privilege, but the scope of my humanity is limited in the settler-colonial state, and I wish to make good on the promise of my national ethos of mateship to those around me not just for their sake, but for my own.

That is an distortion and twisting of my words, putting words in my mouth. I did not say that decolonization is for the indigenous alone, and you are correct that it is not- but as they are the primary party who have been wronged, and as an imposed solution from without could be seen as simply a continuation of imperialism, their wishes must certainly be given consideration.

I quote now Lilla Watson, a Gangulu scholar, artist and epistemologist, and the Aboriginal activists group she was involved in in Queensland in the 1970s. "If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together. "

That is a sentiment with which I cannot disagree.

The issue of my ancestry has already been discussed, but see above - decolonization is not, as you seem to believe, some kind of gift for the Indigenous peoples. It is not something to be undertaken solely for their benefit, but for everyone's benefit. Settlers are stakeholders in the process.

I do not contest this point, but it does not change my overall conclusions.

I note also that you seem to be taking the view that to simply advocate for decolonization is cultural imperialism, and that the works of the Indigenous scholars I referenced - perhaps you were unaware, but three of the four names I mentioned were/are of Indigenous descent - should not be considered as representing the wishes of any Indigenous peoples. Both of these proposals are, bluntly, incorrect.

I was unaware.

I would give their views more weight on that basis, though they still obviously do not speak for the entire indigenous population.

It is when you make a basic error of fact. For instance, a national identity does not posit any kind of nationalism other than the existence of nations in and of themselves (and while, as an anarchist, I support the dissolution of all nations that is another matter). You wish to read it as such, but let me ask you: Do you not call yourself an American? Is that not a national identity?

I regard myself as an American, a Canadian, and many other identities that have nothing to do with nationhood.

I acknowledge that having a national identity is not necessarily the same as nationalism, but reiterate my concerns about your apparent desire to substitute national identity for white identity (given the way you framed your argument).

By all means, list them and if I haven't already addressed them, I may do so.

Most notably, your insistence on pushing a solution to colonization regardless of whether it is what the majority of the effected population wants, and your stated goal of achieving through democratic means something I am not convinced can be achieved or maintained democratically.

[loomer]

Decolonization is a specific field of theory, TRR, not just a buzzword. It fundamentally posits, when used in the context of settler-colonialism, the restoration of Indigenous sovereignty as a central goal. So, quite simply: If you disagree, you are not on the side of decolonization.

Alright. But the terminology is nonetheless loaded- saying "you're against decolonization" can certainly sound like an implication that the person is therefore pro-colonization.

And yet - you are anti-decolonization. You objected to the label, but here we are: It is accurate. You do not support the central goals of decolonization and actively oppose one of them; therefore, you are anti-decolonization.

I have no formal evidence, only my own experience in which the goals are endorsed by the majority of Indigenous people I have heard speak on the issue and its related issues. This is why I specified that there is no formal study that accomplishes what you asked for - but I also point out to you that I have not made a claim to the contrary. You have asked me to defend a position I have not taken and provide proof for a claim I have not made.

I'm not saying you made that claim- I am saying that if you want to argue that your position would reverse centuries of racial injustice and imperialism, it is important that you take the wishes of the people being liberated into account if you don't want to come off as a raging hypocrite.

And this is why the proposal is for a democratic process of negotiation and discussion.

This also strikes me, frankly, as a subject on which a formal study should absolutely be done, now, if none already exists.

You'll find no disagreement from me.

Now this, this is very telling. You view decolonization as something for the Indigenous alone - but decolonization is also for the Settler. It is for me as much as for my goori neighbour. I am fortunate enough to inhabit a position of relative privilege, but the scope of my humanity is limited in the settler-colonial state, and I wish to make good on the promise of my national ethos of mateship to those around me not just for their sake, but for my own.

That is an distortion and twisting of my words, putting words in my mouth. I did not say that decolonization is for the indigenous alone, and you are correct that it is not- but as they are the primary party who have been wronged, and as an imposed solution from without could be seen as simply a continuation of imperialism, their wishes must certainly be given consideration.[/quote]

Who said anything about an imposed solution from without? Further, I don't see how it's putting words in your mouth - you stated, and I quote, that my position 'shows a frankly shocking disregard for the actual wishes of the populace you wish to liberate'. But I am part of that populace. Perhaps you did not intend it - but it was certainly the meaning of your text that the Indigenous are the subject of decolonization, not the Settlers.

I quote now Lilla Watson, a Gangulu scholar, artist and epistemologist, and the Aboriginal activists group she was involved in in Queensland in the 1970s. "If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together. "

That is a sentiment with which I cannot disagree.

Then you understand the absurdity of your position.

The issue of my ancestry has already been discussed, but see above - decolonization is not, as you seem to believe, some kind of gift for the Indigenous peoples. It is not something to be undertaken solely for their benefit, but for everyone's benefit. Settlers are stakeholders in the process.

I do not contest this point, but it does not change my overall conclusions.

Then you are not on the side of decolonization.

I note also that you seem to be taking the view that to simply advocate for decolonization is cultural imperialism, and that the works of the Indigenous scholars I referenced - perhaps you were unaware, but three of the four names I mentioned were/are of Indigenous descent - should not be considered as representing the wishes of any Indigenous peoples. Both of these proposals are, bluntly, incorrect.

I was unaware.

I would give their views more weight on that basis, though they still obviously do not speak for the entire indigenous population.

How is it that you feel qualified to argue the issue of what decolonization is, should be, and who is or is not a decolonization activist or advocate when you don't know two of the biggest names in the field?

It is when you make a basic error of fact. For instance, a national identity does not posit any kind of nationalism other than the existence of nations in and of themselves (and while, as an anarchist, I support the dissolution of all nations that is another matter). You wish to read it as such, but let me ask you: Do you not call yourself an American? Is that not a national identity?

I regard myself as an American, a Canadian, and many other identities that have nothing to do with nationhood.[/quote]

Both those identies are fundamentally to do with nationhood.

I acknowledge that having a national identity is not necessarily the same as nationalism, but reiterate my concerns about your apparent desire to substitute national identity for white identity (given the way you framed your argument).

National identities necessarily emerge out of the dissolution of White identities. I am not a White Australian, but an Anglo-Australian - an Australian of Anglo descent, rather than the unspoken 'I am the true and only Australian' of White Australian.

By all means, list them and if I haven't already addressed them, I may do so.

Most notably, your insistence on pushing a solution to colonization regardless of whether it is what the majority of the effected population wants, and your stated goal of achieving through democratic means something I am not convinced can be achieved or maintained democratically.

You seem confused. I do not 'push a solution to colonization regardless of whether it is what the majority of the effected population wants'. If I was, I wouldn't be proposing a democratic solution, now would I?

As for the latter, do you dispute that Americans, Australians, etc can change and be less racist? Because all I propose is really this: Teach the Settler to be less racist and to accept that Settler-Colonialism is built on genocide and is bad, and the rest will follow.

[The Romulan Republic]

Look, let's simplify this:

I will support any solution which can be achieved democratically, which does not lead to a more politically divided world, and has as its foundation the belief that all people are fundamentally equal.

Anything else is negotiable. Those things are not.

[loomer]

Look, let's simplify this:

I will support any solution which can be achieved democratically, which does not lead to a more politically divided world, and has as its foundation the belief that all people are fundamentally equal.

Anything else is negotiable. Those things are not.

Okay. But in doing so, you would deny the restoration of Indigenous sovereignty and statehood. This is anti-decolonization. So let's return to what started this:

I will add that placing me on the "anti-decolonization side" is a LIE, and I will treat it as such, and you as the liar and the vermin that you are. You have conflated a difference in rhetoric and perhaps tactics with fundamental opposition the goal of decolonization.

Do you retract your accusation I am a 'liar' and 'vermin'?

Further, I find it very convenient that as we turn into the inconsistencies of your own position - 'I don't believe in national identities; I am an American and Canadian', 'Decolonization is for the Indigenous; oh, of course it isn't' (which is, incidentally, actually a common view - and a lingering relic of the 'white man's burden'), 'I am qualified to judge what is and is not decolonization; I do not know the names or background of its leading scholars' - you desire to 'simplify'. You have attacked me - labelled me a coward, a liar, vermin, accused me of engaging in a systematic campaign against you and of demanding dogpiling against you. And now you wish to 'simplify', after refusing to read the posts that outlined positions that would have rendered this entire little sideshow unncessary?

[The Romulan Republic]

Look, let's simplify this:

I will support any solution which can be achieved democratically, which does not lead to a more politically divided world, and has as its foundation the belief that all people are fundamentally equal.

Anything else is negotiable. Those things are not.

Okay. But in doing so, you would deny the restoration of Indigenous sovereignty and statehood. This is anti-decolonization.

I support negotiations with Indigenous populations to try to reach a political solution that is equitable to all parties and practically implimentable, without requiring the dislocation or disenfranchisement of millions of people.

So let's return to what started this:

I will add that placing me on the "anti-decolonization side" is a LIE, and I will treat it as such, and you as the liar and the vermin that you are. You have conflated a difference in rhetoric and perhaps tactics with fundamental opposition the goal of decolonization.

Do you retract your accusation I am a 'liar' and 'vermin'?

Using the definition you have now given of anti-decolonization, I will concede that you were not lying on that point, and apologize for the accusation.

I will still maintain that you are using loaded terminology which has the effect of implying that anyone who disagrees with you is pro-colonialism, but language is often clumsy that way.

[loomer]

Look, let's simplify this:

I will support any solution which can be achieved democratically, which does not lead to a more politically divided world, and has as its foundation the belief that all people are fundamentally equal.

Anything else is negotiable. Those things are not.

Okay. But in doing so, you would deny the restoration of Indigenous sovereignty and statehood. This is anti-decolonization.

I support negotiations with Indigenous populations to try to reach a political solution that is equitable to all parties and practically implimentable, without requiring the dislocation or disenfranchisement of millions of people.

If you had actually read the thread, you would understand that neither of those outcomes is being advocated for. Perhaps, if you are unwilling to educate yourself, you should be silent.

[The Romulan Republic]

Okay. But in doing so, you would deny the restoration of Indigenous sovereignty and statehood. This is anti-decolonization.

I support negotiations with Indigenous populations to try to reach a political solution that is equitable to all parties and practically implimentable, without requiring the dislocation or disenfranchisement of millions of people.

If you had actually read the thread, you would understand that neither of those outcomes is being advocated for. Perhaps, if you are unwilling to educate yourself, you should be silent.

As previously stated, I believe that there is a potential disconnect between your stated goals, and the likely practical outcome of attempting to implement them. However, I am certainly willing to further explore the subject.

[loomer]

I support negotiations with Indigenous populations to try to reach a political solution that is equitable to all parties and practically implimentable, without requiring the dislocation or disenfranchisement of millions of people.

If you had actually read the thread, you would understand that neither of those outcomes is being advocated for. Perhaps, if you are unwilling to educate yourself, you should be silent.

As previously stated, I believe that there is a potential disconnect between your stated goals, and the likely practical outcome of attempting to implement them. However, I am certainly willing to further explore the subject.

I will not explore it further with you until you go and read the thread. I have no patience for those who launch attacks on me and wish to simplify without actually reading.