Decolonization of CANZUS as Compared to Decolonization of Europe, Africa, Asia, etc.

[Jub]

I'm going to try to approach this as respectfully as possible and will likely refrain from further posts in this topic except to ask questions to clarify answers already given. There's a lot to this topic and thus a lot that I might be missing in asking about this in the first place. Please try to stay on topic and go easy on a guy looking for answers.

-----

My main question is about what makes decolonization of areas where Europeans conquered the native peoples of CANZUS (and similar regions) any different from the decolonization and redrawing of borders in Europe, the Middle East, China, or the areas of Africa where the main sources of conflict are between different ethnic groups? From an outsider's point of view, it seems like the main sticking point is the ability and willingness for the conquered group to assimilate into the region's new dominant culture; this also explains the hatred for groups that didn't do so such as the Roma or the Jews. The other point I can see as a major reason is the ongoing harm, neglect, and the preventable loss of culture. In areas where colonization and assimilation have already reached an unresolvable state and are thus beyond any reasonable effort to fix.

Are my assumptions correct?

[madd0ct0r]

Would you like me to reply in Welsh, Gaelic or English?
Sadly I only have the English.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_Not

/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-brit ... un-1628244

I think what I am saying is that is not that different, but the history is shorter, more straight forward and the countries involved are not as far along the total cultural and wealth destruction visited on more unfortunate regions. As such, small wins now in pushing back extend the timeline where a successful canzus decolonisation could occur.

[Jub]

Would you like me to reply in Welsh, Gaelic or English?
Sadly I only have the English.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_Not

/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-brit ... un-1628244

I think what I am saying is that is not that different, but the history is shorter, more straight forward and the countries involved are not as far along the total cultural and wealth destruction visited on more unfortunate regions. As such, small wins now in pushing back extend the timeline where a successful canzus decolonisation could occur.

I agree that we should not willfully destroy a culture or language in the way that Welsh, Gaelic, and the many Native languages were systematically destroyed. Though I will also say that the modern preservationist stance towards languages and cultures is a slightly odd one. We encourage things to stay static for fear of losing something and yet change is the natural state of all things, at which points should we allow change assimilation and evolution versus fighting to preserve something in perpetual stasis?

[loomer]

Language preservation is not 'fighting to preserve something in perpetual stasis'. It is fighting to allow it to exist to enrich the human experience and be part of the process of linguistic change and evolution rather than being forcibly exterminated. Same with cultural preservation. Given that language is part of what sets the boundaries of our conceptual frameworks and the Indigenous language families of Australia and the Americas frequently come with a baked-in set of conceptual possibilities highly distinct other language families and well-suited to relating to a world that must regreened and towards systems theory approaches, it's particularly worth preserving and restoring them from a purely pragmatic level.

Bluntly, the position we should just lie back and 'allow assimilation to happen' is the position that we should simply finish the genocide attempt involved and be done with it when we're talking about CANZUS. The assimilation in question isn't a willing one (if it was, we wouldn't be having the discussion), and it isn't a mutual assimilation into a synthesis culture, which is an inevitable outcome of long-term multicultural societies. It is the destruction of one and the subsumption of its population into another without that other culture undergoing similar transformation, against the will of the former's population. So it's not so much fear.

It's more determination not to lose something, and a desire to connect to culture. The distinction is crucial. This is not, as you put it, a desire for stasis. It is a desire for existence.

[Jub]

Language preservation is not 'fighting to preserve something in perpetual stasis'. It is fighting to allow it to exist to enrich the human experience and be part of the process of linguistic change and evolution rather than being forcibly exterminated. Same with cultural preservation. Given that language is part of what sets the boundaries of our conceptual frameworks and the Indigenous language families of Australia and the Americas frequently come with a baked-in set of conceptual possibilities highly distinct other language families and well-suited to relating to a world that must regreened and towards systems theory approaches, it's particularly worth preserving and restoring them from a purely pragmatic level.

Bluntly, the position we should just lie back and 'allow assimilation to happen' is the position that we should simply finish the genocide attempt involved and be done with it when we're talking about CANZUS. The assimilation in question isn't a willing one (if it was, we wouldn't be having the discussion), and it isn't a mutual assimilation into a synthesis culture, which is an inevitable outcome of long-term multicultural societies. It is the destruction of one and the subsumption of its population into another without that other culture undergoing similar transformation, against the will of the former's population. So it's not so much fear.

It's more determination not to lose something, and a desire to connect to culture. The distinction is crucial. This is not, as you put it, a desire for stasis. It is a desire for existence.

What about native groups or tribes that were wiped out by other such groups before Europeans ever came over? The various people's of Europe who have homogenized or exterminated to create the modern European geopolitical landscape? The ongoing wars between various groups in Africa, if we stop them we remove a thing that these groups have been doing since the beginning of humanity if we don't we risk losing the traditions of a people group. What do we do here?

In another thread, you mentioned that in some native traditions only a single member can pass along certain secrets, assign their successor, etc. that seems impractical from a preservationist standpoint but also like something that would become completely unworkable if their nation was to flourish and vastly expand in numbers. How do you preserve something like that?

Obviously saving a language is a net positive, but how about saving a culture already irreparably damaged by our attempts to wipe out the few people still using it? It's unlikely that any native culture in all of CANZUS is all that similar to what it was precontact so what are we saving besides that last thing keeping a lot of people on reserves and living in terrible conditions?

[loomer]

Language preservation is not 'fighting to preserve something in perpetual stasis'. It is fighting to allow it to exist to enrich the human experience and be part of the process of linguistic change and evolution rather than being forcibly exterminated. Same with cultural preservation. Given that language is part of what sets the boundaries of our conceptual frameworks and the Indigenous language families of Australia and the Americas frequently come with a baked-in set of conceptual possibilities highly distinct other language families and well-suited to relating to a world that must regreened and towards systems theory approaches, it's particularly worth preserving and restoring them from a purely pragmatic level.

Bluntly, the position we should just lie back and 'allow assimilation to happen' is the position that we should simply finish the genocide attempt involved and be done with it when we're talking about CANZUS. The assimilation in question isn't a willing one (if it was, we wouldn't be having the discussion), and it isn't a mutual assimilation into a synthesis culture, which is an inevitable outcome of long-term multicultural societies. It is the destruction of one and the subsumption of its population into another without that other culture undergoing similar transformation, against the will of the former's population. So it's not so much fear.

It's more determination not to lose something, and a desire to connect to culture. The distinction is crucial. This is not, as you put it, a desire for stasis. It is a desire for existence.

What about native groups or tribes that were wiped out by other such groups before Europeans ever came over? The various people's of Europe who have homogenized or exterminated to create the modern European geopolitical landscape? The ongoing wars between various groups in Africa, if we stop them we remove a thing that these groups have been doing since the beginning of humanity if we don't we risk losing the traditions of a people group. What do we do here?

What about them? They aren't relevant to the CANZUS situation.

In another thread, you mentioned that in some native traditions only a single member can pass along certain secrets, assign their successor, etc. that seems impractical from a preservationist standpoint but also like something that would become completely unworkable if their nation was to flourish and vastly expand in numbers. How do you preserve something like that?

I'll be blunt, Jub. You are vastly underprepared for this conversation, and I don't say that to be cruel. My advice to you is to find some entry level cultural studies resources for the First Nations of BC and the Indigenous experience of the CANZUS colonies generally. You may also find the recent book 'Braiding Sweetgrass' useful.

I say this because you don't seem to understand why I referred to a single person having this knowledge. This is not, in fact, how things are meant to be done or were customarily done. It is the direct product of genocide reducing the pool of knowledge from 'everyone/a large body of culturally appropriate people' to 'a handful', who have to try and pass that knowledge on now that the genocide is done. So this idea that hey, it's unworkable and impractical - no shit. It's unworkable and impractical precisely because it isn't meant to be that way. The whole point of restoration is to move that knowledge from fragile and endangered to resilient and robust.

Obviously saving a language is a net positive, but how about saving a culture already irreparably damaged by our attempts to wipe out the few people still using it? It's unlikely that any native culture in all of CANZUS is all that similar to what it was precontact so what are we saving besides that last thing keeping a lot of people on reserves and living in terrible conditions?

What we're saving is whatever can be saved of those cultures, for the sake of its inheritors. The intent is not to magically restore pre-contact traditions, but to ensure that they don't simply vanish away without even the memory of what they were. Again, you are tremendously underprepared for this conversation, as decolonization and cultural preservation+renaissance is not about some utopian pristine restoration but a practical program of survival.

This idea that the culture is 'irreparably damaged [and dissimilar] to what it was precontact' so we shouldn't make an effort to prevent its destruction boils down to 'the genocide happened, we might as well finish it off'. The culture involved is actually a living thing, so when we say 'we need to preserve Bundjalung culture', that doesn't mean just what it was in 1788 - it means what it is today too. So while these cultures have been altered, they haven't been destroyed, and while there's impetus to try and remove some influences and restore older traditions, this isn't because of a utopian stasis ideal.

Let's also consider your last line. 'that last thing keeping a lot of people on reserves and living in terrible conditions.' That's not culture - that's the existence of colonial states that have stolen the majority of land, murdered millions, and continue to refuse to restore land, pay rent, and actually deliver justice. There is nothing inherent about Indigenous cultures that creates 'terrible conditions' - these conditions are a direct result of dispossession, marginalization, and ongoing theft. Again, I strongly urge you to pick up some basic materials on the issue, because you're coming at this from an enormous place of ignorance.

[Jub]

What about them? They aren't relevant to the CANZUS situation.

Check the thread title loomer.

I say this because you don't seem to understand why I referred to a single person having this knowledge. This is not, in fact, how things are meant to be done or were customarily done. It is the direct product of genocide reducing the pool of knowledge from 'everyone/a large body of culturally appropriate people' to 'a handful', who have to try and pass that knowledge on now that the genocide is done. So this idea that hey, it's unworkable and impractical - no shit. It's unworkable and impractical precisely because it isn't meant to be that way. The whole point of restoration is to move that knowledge from fragile and endangered to resilient and robust.

Hence my making this thread to challenge my assumptions. The way you phrased it in the other thread made it seem like there were unbreachable barriers to these people passing on their knowledge and titles because of tradition dictating that it be done a certain way.

This idea that the culture is 'irreparably damaged [and dissimilar] to what it was precontact' so we shouldn't make an effort to prevent its destruction boils down to 'the genocide happened, we might as well finish it off'. The culture involved is actually a living thing, so when we say 'we need to preserve Bundjalung culture', that doesn't mean just what it was in 1788 - it means what it is today too. So while these cultures have been altered, they haven't been destroyed, and while there's impetus to try and remove some influences and restore older traditions, this isn't because of a utopian stasis ideal.

Okay, that makes sense.

Let's also consider your last line. 'that last thing keeping a lot of people on reserves and living in terrible conditions.' That's not culture - that's the existence of colonial states that have stolen the majority of land, murdered millions, and continue to refuse to restore land, pay rent, and actually deliver justice. There is nothing inherent about Indigenous cultures that creates 'terrible conditions' - these conditions are a direct result of dispossession, marginalization, and ongoing theft. Again, I strongly urge you to pick up some basic materials on the issue, because you're coming at this from an enormous place of ignorance.

What is keeping natives from making the choice to leave their reservations and join the rest of us? I'd argue that it's culture. They're actively not making choices that improve their quality of life and I question why that is.

My own family moved from the Netherlands to Western Canada in the '50s only my grandparents, who were children at the time of the move, speak any Dutch. Did my grandparents destroy their family's culture by not forcing my mother and uncle to speak Dutch at home? Similarly, how do you feel about the Hong Kong migration and the numerous people it brought to Vancouver who still don't speak English?

[loomer]

What about them? They aren't relevant to the CANZUS situation.

Check the thread title loomer.

I'm aware of it, but the existence of wars in Africa still has no bearing on the issue of cultural and linguistic preservation in CANZUS.

I say this because you don't seem to understand why I referred to a single person having this knowledge. This is not, in fact, how things are meant to be done or were customarily done. It is the direct product of genocide reducing the pool of knowledge from 'everyone/a large body of culturally appropriate people' to 'a handful', who have to try and pass that knowledge on now that the genocide is done. So this idea that hey, it's unworkable and impractical - no shit. It's unworkable and impractical precisely because it isn't meant to be that way. The whole point of restoration is to move that knowledge from fragile and endangered to resilient and robust.

Hence my making this thread to challenge my assumptions. The way you phrased it in the other thread made it seem like there were unbreachable barriers to these people passing on their knowledge and titles because of tradition dictating that it be done a certain way.

There are, and I'm also going to clarify something. Tradition, in this context, is more than just tradition - it's law. So you have a situation where, because of a genocide, there a handful of people who possess knowledge and laws that cannot be broken about how it is given to others that make its restoration slower.

Let's take the initiatic tradition example. It's a standard condition that only an initiated person can initiate another person. In a society without interruption, that tradition will cover all or most of the applicable population group. In a society with interruption, it ceases to do so, and transmission of the initiatic ceremony is disrupted and slowed. But if you break the law around those initiations, they are invalid, and the line dies. This is why the situation that exists is so: the laws that govern the dissemination of information are designed for a healthy, uninterrupted social system, and not what is essentially a post-apocalyptic one.

Let's also consider your last line. 'that last thing keeping a lot of people on reserves and living in terrible conditions.' That's not culture - that's the existence of colonial states that have stolen the majority of land, murdered millions, and continue to refuse to restore land, pay rent, and actually deliver justice. There is nothing inherent about Indigenous cultures that creates 'terrible conditions' - these conditions are a direct result of dispossession, marginalization, and ongoing theft. Again, I strongly urge you to pick up some basic materials on the issue, because you're coming at this from an enormous place of ignorance.

What is keeping natives from making the choice to leave their reservations and join the rest of us? I'd argue that it's culture. They're actively not making choices that improve their quality of life and I question why that is.

My own family moved from the Netherlands to Western Canada in the '50s only my grandparents, who were children at the time of the move, speak any Dutch. Did my grandparents destroy their family's culture by not forcing my mother and uncle to speak Dutch at home? Similarly, how do you feel about the Hong Kong migration and the numerous people it brought to Vancouver who still don't speak English?

So, you're still not getting it. The point of the decolonial enterprise is to challenge the assumption that it must be either/or. It shouldn't be a choice between 'maintain your culture' and 'have a decent standard of living', especially not in your own homelands (also, 'natives' as an uncapitalized generic is not acceptable, uh, anywhere as far as I know.) As for your family? No one forced them to abandon their language, and they made a voluntary migration to a country where it isn't an easy language to speak and do business in. The situation is radically different from say, that of Ojibwe who still live in their own territory but now have to fight just to keep their language alive, let alone be able to speak it as a language of daily business, all due to an active genocide.

It's a bit like asking why the Dutch on the whole don't abandon speaking Dutch in the Netherlands completely to just speak English, since English is the world's dominant lingua franca.

As for the Hong Kong diaspora? I think a lot of them are looking to obtain settler privilege and disapprove on that basis. As for language, it's up to them to make the choice to learn English or not. It'd be practical if they did, since they live in a country where English is one of the main languages, but if they wish not to they may do so. But this example really has nothing at all to do with the issue of preserving and restoring the Indigenous languages of settler-colonial states, just like the Dutch example.

[madd0ct0r]

I think Jub you need to make the distinction between 'different cultures', 'clashing cultures' and 'settler/colonised cultures'.

In the last case a very powerful group is attempting to impose hegemony on a minor group to the point of exterminating any of its cultural heritage, coherency and ability to form a rival society.

This is true of imposed schooling where Welsh language was rooted out and punished. It was even more true of the boarding school scandal of Australia and Canada.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia ... ool_system


This is very different to an immigrant willingly moving to a country and assimilating.

[Jub]

There are, and I'm also going to clarify something. Tradition, in this context, is more than just tradition - it's law. So you have a situation where, because of a genocide, there a handful of people who possess knowledge and laws that cannot be broken about how it is given to others that make its restoration slower.

Let's take the initiatic tradition example. It's a standard condition that only an initiated person can initiate another person. In a society without interruption, that tradition will cover all or most of the applicable population group. In a society with interruption, it ceases to do so, and transmission of the initiatic ceremony is disrupted and slowed. But if you break the law around those initiations, they are invalid, and the line dies. This is why the situation that exists is so: the laws that govern the dissemination of information are designed for a healthy, uninterrupted social system, and not what is essentially a post-apocalyptic one.

Then it sounds to me like laws need amending so that they match the reality of the situation. This sort of stasis of traditional laws is exactly what I was getting at when I brought up the idea of preservation for preservation's sake.

So, you're still not getting it. The point of the decolonial enterprise is to challenge the assumption that it must be either/or. It shouldn't be a choice between 'maintain your culture' and 'have a decent standard of living', especially not in your own homelands (also, 'natives' as an uncapitalized generic is not acceptable, uh, anywhere as far as I know.) As for your family? No one forced them to abandon their language, and they made a voluntary migration to a country where it isn't an easy language to speak and do business in. The situation is radically different from say, that of Ojibwe who still live in their own territory but now have to fight just to keep their language alive, let alone be able to speak it as a language of daily business, all due to an active genocide.

This is why I bring up Europe, there used to be hundreds of small kingdoms, each as distinct and vibrant and the groups you're seeking to save. They are mostly gone after thousands of years of conquest, migration, and concentration of power into the states we're familiar with today. Outside of a few hotspots it's a mostly settled issue.

How is the current situation with the Native groups in CANZUS any different than the situation for all the other people groups that have been chewed up and spit up by warfare, disease, genocide, etc. over all of human history? Would Europe be better off as a collection of county sized micronations as opposed to it's currently mostly peaceful unified state?

It's a bit like asking why the Dutch on the whole don't abandon speaking Dutch in the Netherlands completely to just speak English, since English is the world's dominant lingua franca.

Most of their population speak rather good English. It's a joke among them that the hardest part of learning Dutch is getting one of them to speak it to you rather than defaulting to English.

As for the Hong Kong diaspora? I think a lot of them are looking to obtain settler privilege and disapprove on that basis. As for language, it's up to them to make the choice to learn English or not. It'd be practical if they did, since they live in a country where English is one of the main languages, but if they wish not to they may do so.

You don't live here and have to try to answer questions to seniors who barely speak two words of English and who can't type their name on a US standard keyboard layout. It's infuriating to try to help these people because they rarely know the words for the items they're asking about, much less the technical terms to explain the differences between two similar but distinct items.

But this example really has nothing at all to do with the issue of preserving and restoring the Indigenous languages of settler-colonial states, just like the Dutch example.

It does though, it shows the fluidity of culture and language among the non-Native populations of the world. People are willing to pick up their entire lives, leave their culture behind, and they do it for all kinds of reasons. This is the way the world works, the globalization genie isn't going back into the bottle and yet we have people clinging to ancient traditions and failing to move on with the rest of the world... I don't get it.

I think Jub you need to make the distinction between 'different cultures', 'clashing cultures' and 'settler/colonised cultures'.

In the last case a very powerful group is attempting to impose hegemony on a minor group to the point of exterminating any of its cultural heritage, coherency and ability to form a rival society.

This is true of imposed schooling where Welsh language was rooted out and punished. It was even more true of the boarding school scandal of Australia and Canada.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia ... ool_system

This is very different to an immigrant willingly moving to a country and assimilating.

I'm well aware of residential schools, the current missing issue of the missing women, and the chronic underfunding of most Native communities in Canada and that Canada is a model nation compared to what Australia does with their First Peoples. That doesn't change the fact that clinging to the wreckage of the past and trapping yourself in poverty by doing so is a terribly illogical choice. It's like a college graduate never leaving their thousand-person hometown while always whining about how they can't find work in their field.

Move on, get with the times, and you'll be better for it.

[loomer]

Jub, before we proceed further, I'd like you to please explain what it is you think decolonization seeks to achieve and what you think cultural and language preservation and restoration efforts seek to achieve.

[Tribble]

My understanding is that full decolonization implies the dissolution of CANZUS as entities and return of full control to the indigenous population, and/or the relocation/removal of “settler” populations from indigenous territories.

To be fair I doubt there are many who are fully advocating for either, especially the ladder.

[loomer]

My understanding is that full decolonization implies the dissolution of CANZUS as entities, and/or the relocation/removal of “settler” populations from indigenous territories.

To be fair I doubt there are many who are really advocating for either, especially the ladder.

The former, possibly - certainly CANZUS as currently constituted (white supremacist settler states built on the unlawful and illegitimate seizure of land and sovereignty) would have to die to give birth to something more equitable and just, even if that offspring might keep the same name and territorial borders. The latter, no. Decolonization as a set of theories and praxis is actively hostile to attempts at ethnic cleansing, and the exceptions who do argue for it are either doing so to be provocative and will usually concede that no, they don't want to see a genocide either, or are edgy teenagers.

It really can't be emphasized enough that no mainstream or serious decolonization theory calls for the wholesale mass 'relocation' of settler (no need for quotation marks, either) populations from Indigenous land. Where that relocation is called for it's usually to do with 'you are literally living on our most sacred land, please stop' or 'living here requires infrastructure that will no longer be permitted due to its horrific damage to our lands' rather than any wholesale desire to drive the settlers out.

Of course, it can be said in a different sense that the end goal of decolonization ultimately is the removal of settler peoples - by rendering them just people, no more or less privileged than any other, in an equitable state of affairs that no longer maintains the Settler/Native dyad or Settler/Native/Slave triad. But this is a very different sense of removal.

[Jub]

Jub, before we proceed further, I'd like you to please explain what it is you think decolonization seeks to achieve and what you think cultural and language preservation and restoration efforts seek to achieve.

What decolonization means can vary depending on which group or person is using the term and can mean anything from 'Send the white man and his lackeys back to Europe' to 'We'd like the right to self-govern, control of our own borders, and to have built the industry and infrastructure for our own self-sufficiency without your continued involvement' to 'No deal worked out within a western legal framework can suffice as working within that framework is a form of cultural dispossession.' It's impossible to give it a single definition when even within your field there doesn't seem to be a solid consensus as to which forms of decolonization are most practical, ethical, restorative, etc.

[loomer]

Jub, before we proceed further, I'd like you to please explain what it is you think decolonization seeks to achieve and what you think cultural and language preservation and restoration efforts seek to achieve.

What decolonization means can vary depending on which group or person is using the term and can mean anything from 'Send the white man and his lackeys back to Europe' to 'We'd like the right to self-govern, control of our own borders, and to have built the industry and infrastructure for our own self-sufficiency without your continued involvement' to 'No deal worked out within a western legal framework can suffice as working within that framework is a form of cultural dispossession.' It's impossible to give it a single definition when even within your field there doesn't seem to be a solid consensus as to which forms of decolonization are most practical, ethical, restorative, etc.

Okay, but what is it you think it's about and its end goals are? And what do you think cultural and language preservation and restoration efforts seek to achieve? Because from your posts, there are certain positions I think you hold that are counterfactual to what's actually being discussed.

[Jub]

Okay, but what is it you think it's about and its end goals are?

All of the above given the sweeping nature of this conversation. If we were to focus on a single group and their main aims I'd research what exactly they think decolonization means, what they want, and what they expect is realistic to actually get.

And what do you think cultural and language preservation and restoration efforts seek to achieve?

Again it depends on exactly which language and culture we're talking about. In some areas, it could be returning the language to being commonly spoken in a particular region while achieving official language status in the nation; in others, it could be archiving the language what stories and knowledge known only in that language and a rosetta stone so people can go back and read or listen to these collections later. It depends on how healthy the language and culture are, what resources can be expected to go towards preservation/restoration, the desires of the people of the culture in question... There isn't a blanket one size fits all answer.

The issue I have is where the keepers of a culture hamstring their own preservation/restoration efforts and endanger the knowledge that exists only in a few old and vulnerable elders because they won't bend to reality and set aside rituals and traditions which worked in better times. Beyond that, I support those members of endangered cultures who choose to integrate with modern society and who may not learn the language of their elders or the traditions of their people. They've made the choice I would have made.

Keep in mind you're speaking with a person who has no religious beliefs, no deep family connections, no personal traditions, etc. I place very little value on the nonsense that most people rely on to get them through the week and even less on the false smiles and vapid small talk that seems to make the world go round. I believe in a deterministic universe where we're all just watching a complex physics puzzle unravel itself. Due to this, I don't believe in free will either.

[madd0ct0r]

Would you agree that your personal attitude to traditions, people , vapid small talk and the rest are very different to most of society and thus kinda irrelevant when it comes to discussing how societies interact?

Be as may.

The issue I have is where the keepers of a culture hamstring their own preservation/restoration efforts and endanger the knowledge that exists only in a few old and vulnerable elders because they won't bend to reality and set aside rituals and traditions which worked in better times. Beyond that, I support those members of endangered cultures who choose to integrate with modern society and who may not learn the language of their elders or the traditions of their people. They've made the choice I would have made.[\quote]

There is still a disconnect here. I'm presenting situations where someone s culture is taken away against their will by hegemonic settlers, your presenting situations where people voluntarily give it up.
Why?

[Jub]

Would you agree that your personal attitude to traditions, people , vapid small talk and the rest are very different to most of society and thus kinda irrelevant when it comes to discussing how societies interact?

Be as may.

The trend globally is away from religion and close family ties towards forming loose-knit collections of friends that form mutually supportive bonds. Combine this with the homogenization of cultures due to globalization, the internet, movies and games designed to sell everywhere from China, to the US, to Germany and I think my view is what the future looks like. How many people order food online just to avoid a phone conversation or use self-checkouts when possible for the same reason?

The past and its traditions are often rooted in older more ignorant times and, especially with things like religion, we're better off without them.

There is still a disconnect here. I'm presenting situations where someone s culture is taken away against their will by hegemonic settlers, your presenting situations where people voluntarily give it up.

I believe I addressed that already. We shouldn't have done that, but nor should we keep a culture or language on indefinite life support beyond its ability to self propagate. Things die, things go extinct, and its arrogance to think we can stop that from happening.

[loomer]

Okay, but what is it you think it's about and its end goals are?

All of the above given the sweeping nature of this conversation. If we were to focus on a single group and their main aims I'd research what exactly they think decolonization means, what they want, and what they expect is realistic to actually get.

You are, bluntly, wrong.

The goals of decolonization theorists and activists in CANZUS can be broadly summed up thus:
1. An end to systematic discrimination against Indigenous peoples by both state and private entities.
2. The destruction of the hierarchies of privilege that place settler wellbeing over Indigenous wellbeing and the structures that support these hierarchies.
3. The recognition of, and where sought, the restoration of sovereignty for Indigenous polities.
4. Reparations for the systematic theft of land, resources, and people.
5. Landback where possible and desired.
6. The recognition of, and recentering of, Indigenous cultures, languages, and epistemologies within their territories.

You may notice 'kill all the white people/kick all the white people back to Europe' is not on this list. This is because it is a fringe position, and one rarely genuinely espoused. You may also notice that I am speaking in broad terms and yet still managing to actually give you a fairly simple list of goals of decolonization theorists and advocates, because despite the practical requirements of each these goals being different from community to community, the goals themselves are largely uniform.

And what do you think cultural and language preservation and restoration efforts seek to achieve?

Again it depends on exactly which language and culture we're talking about. In some areas, it could be returning the language to being commonly spoken in a particular region while achieving official language status in the nation; in others, it could be archiving the language what stories and knowledge known only in that language and a rosetta stone so people can go back and read or listen to these collections later. It depends on how healthy the language and culture are, what resources can be expected to go towards preservation/restoration, the desires of the people of the culture in question... There isn't a blanket one size fits all answer.

You are, again, bluntly wrong. While there is no 'blanket one size fits all answer', the actual goals of language and culture preservation and restoration efforts can still be enunciated with a degree of general application across CANZUS, just like that of decolonization advocates and theorists.

The goals of cultural and language preservation, restoration, and revitalization efforts in CANZUS can be summed up thus:
1. Immediate action to preserve as much knowledge as possible, consisting of both recording and transmitting knowledge from those who possess it where they are available.
2. Making more widely available, either to the Indigenous peoples or to all peoples,* this knowledge.
3. Longterm work to make this knowledge viable over the long term through day-to-day use and transmission through education and a recentering of Indigenous cultures within their territories.
4. Where the culture/language is already moribund, active reconstruction from what resources remain.

(*: Groups are divided. Some want to keep the knowledge internal and away from settlers because of the concern of further exploitation. The combination of decolonization and revitalization addresses this issue by rendering the circumstances of exploitation null.)

The issue I have is where the keepers of a culture hamstring their own preservation/restoration efforts and endanger the knowledge that exists only in a few old and vulnerable elders because they won't bend to reality and set aside rituals and traditions which worked in better times.

Are you assuming that the specific examples I have given are some kind of general problem? Because a, they aren't, and b, it's not up to you. The examples I have given are of traditions that cannot be 'bent to reality' without being irretrievably altered. It is up to their caretakers and those learning from them to maintain their survival, but they need support to do so until transmission takes off again. This is not a decision that you either can make nor have any right to demand be made - you are not a stakeholder in it. You have, bluntly, no standing whatsoever.

And again - you seem to now be operating under the assumption that the specific examples of this kind I have given - e.g. Initiatic traditions - are a broader trend than they are. The number of cases where there are elders who possess knowledge only they can possess are relatively few and far between and have to do primarily with specific stories, obligations, and initiatic rites, and not broader issues of culture and language.

Beyond that, I support those members of endangered cultures who choose to integrate with modern society and who may not learn the language of their elders or the traditions of their people. They've made the choice I would have made.

Great. So you support those who assimilate and adopt the culture of the majority, and not those who want to keep their culture alive in the face of genocide.* That's a nice position to maintain, so long as you aren't on the losing side. Now, would you care to explain why you are insinuating that a person cannot maintain, say, a Yuin identity while 'integrating with modern society'?

(*: I trust you are aware of Wolfe's logic of elimination, right?)

Keep in mind you're speaking with a person who has no religious beliefs, no deep family connections, no personal traditions, etc. I place very little value on the nonsense that most people rely on to get them through the week and even less on the false smiles and vapid small talk that seems to make the world go round. I believe in a deterministic universe where we're all just watching a complex physics puzzle unravel itself. Due to this, I don't believe in free will either.

No deep family connections is a sad thing, and I hope you are able to forge some. It certainly goes a way to explaining the flagrant disregard for elders you have expressed elsewhere. But as to the rest - I take it by this you mean you are somehow not involved in matters of culture and thus feel qualified as an outsider to objectively judge cultures. In this, you are entirely mistaken. You are immersed in culture in everything you do no matter how little value you place on the 'nonsense' that most people rely on.

Let me ask you a few basic cultural questions:
1. Do you have a gender?
2. Do you wear clothes?
3. Do you work?
4. Do you value the opinions of experts over non-experts, or vice versa?
5. Do you vote?
6. Do you watch films or television, read, or play games?

(The irony of 'I don't believe in free will' immediately after congratulation Indigenous people who assimilate for making the same choice you would make is noted.)

There are, and I'm also going to clarify something. Tradition, in this context, is more than just tradition - it's law. So you have a situation where, because of a genocide, there a handful of people who possess knowledge and laws that cannot be broken about how it is given to others that make its restoration slower.

Let's take the initiatic tradition example. It's a standard condition that only an initiated person can initiate another person. In a society without interruption, that tradition will cover all or most of the applicable population group. In a society with interruption, it ceases to do so, and transmission of the initiatic ceremony is disrupted and slowed. But if you break the law around those initiations, they are invalid, and the line dies. This is why the situation that exists is so: the laws that govern the dissemination of information are designed for a healthy, uninterrupted social system, and not what is essentially a post-apocalyptic one.

Then it sounds to me like laws need amending so that they match the reality of the situation. This sort of stasis of traditional laws is exactly what I was getting at when I brought up the idea of preservation for preservation's sake.

Once again, this is not a decision for you, and it is not 'preservation for preservation's sake' any more than recognizing the legitimacy of academic degrees is. Further, how would you amend these laws without fundamentally diluting their contents?

So, you're still not getting it. The point of the decolonial enterprise is to challenge the assumption that it must be either/or. It shouldn't be a choice between 'maintain your culture' and 'have a decent standard of living', especially not in your own homelands (also, 'natives' as an uncapitalized generic is not acceptable, uh, anywhere as far as I know.) As for your family? No one forced them to abandon their language, and they made a voluntary migration to a country where it isn't an easy language to speak and do business in. The situation is radically different from say, that of Ojibwe who still live in their own territory but now have to fight just to keep their language alive, let alone be able to speak it as a language of daily business, all due to an active genocide.

This is why I bring up Europe, there used to be hundreds of small kingdoms, each as distinct and vibrant and the groups you're seeking to save. They are mostly gone after thousands of years of conquest, migration, and concentration of power into the states we're familiar with today. Outside of a few hotspots it's a mostly settled issue.

How is the current situation with the Native groups in CANZUS any different than the situation for all the other people groups that have been chewed up and spit up by warfare, disease, genocide, etc. over all of human history? Would Europe be better off as a collection of county sized micronations as opposed to it's currently mostly peaceful unified state?

Well, for a start, Europe's experiences were largely carried out under a different modality from colonialism (with some notable exceptions) and undertook its transformation significantly longer ago, rendering many of the cultures in question quite thoroughly gone. For a second, CANZUS have large populations of people actively calling for this, while most European states don't through most of their territory. But while we're at it - why shouldn't we recognize, say, the right of the Flemish to maintain their culture? Why shouldn't we recognize the claim of the Basque people or the Kurds to exist, or encourage the revitalization of Scottish Gaelic, or Channel Isles Norman languages?

Also, you have constructed a false dichotomy. It is not a question of 'county sized micronations vs a mostly peaceful unified state'. It is a question of what rights are to be accorded to colonized peoples and whether the basis of colonization is acceptable. Very few decolonization proposals call for anything like the balkanization you suggest here - those that concern themselves with such fine detail usually propose large regional assemblies much like the EU, in fact!

It's a bit like asking why the Dutch on the whole don't abandon speaking Dutch in the Netherlands completely to just speak English, since English is the world's dominant lingua franca.

Most of their population speak rather good English. It's a joke among them that the hardest part of learning Dutch is getting one of them to speak it to you rather than defaulting to English.

Congratulations, you have missed the point entirely. I am aware that many Dutch people speak English - but they also speak Dutch. But if we are asking 'well, why don't people just do what makes sense and is easiest', then the Dutch should stop speaking Dutch at all and only speak English. English is a bigger language with a bigger cultural footprint globally. Dutch, by that standard, is an obsolete language that they should just do away with.

Of course, no one would actually suggest this, because it's absurd on its face.

As for the Hong Kong diaspora? I think a lot of them are looking to obtain settler privilege and disapprove on that basis. As for language, it's up to them to make the choice to learn English or not. It'd be practical if they did, since they live in a country where English is one of the main languages, but if they wish not to they may do so.

You don't live here and have to try to answer questions to seniors who barely speak two words of English and who can't type their name on a US standard keyboard layout. It's infuriating to try to help these people because they rarely know the words for the items they're asking about, much less the technical terms to explain the differences between two similar but distinct items.

Yes, and? Introducing this is actually quite baffling, because it can only mean one of two things.

1. You think that proposals around language revitalization will lead to an explosion of monolingual Indigenous language speakers.
2. You just want to complain about old Chinese people.

I'm assuming it isn't 2, and 1 is, well - silly to assume. CANZUS proposals for language preservation and restoration do not involve getting rid of English (and French and Spanish) entirely, and neither does decolonization.

But let's take a moment. You mentioned the logic of assimilation. Well - logically, you should probably learn Chinese. You presumably have a more flexible mind than that of a befuddled Chinese senior citizen, and China is a rising power with increasing global projection and in Yue form Chinese is the 19th most spoken language in the world. You regularly deal with Chinese people who don't speak English. Logically, it would benefit you to learn to speak Yue (or Mandarin), and that's without touching on the general benefits of learning additional languages for cognition.

But you don't. Instead, you expect them to learn your language. Why is that?

But this example really has nothing at all to do with the issue of preserving and restoring the Indigenous languages of settler-colonial states, just like the Dutch example.

It does though, it shows the fluidity of culture and language among the non-Native populations of the world. People are willing to pick up their entire lives, leave their culture behind, and they do it for all kinds of reasons. This is the way the world works, the globalization genie isn't going back into the bottle and yet we have people clinging to ancient traditions and failing to move on with the rest of the world... I don't get it.

Except, of course, that your example doesn't show what you think it does. The Hong Kong diaspora maintains strong cultural links to Hong Kong, right? Many of its children learn Chinese (whether Cantonese or Mandarin), there's a significant flow back and forth of people visiting relatives, the food culture comes along for the ride, and so on. What you're actually pointing at is the opposite of total assimilation, which is what you're proposing for Indigenous peoples.

I think Jub you need to make the distinction between 'different cultures', 'clashing cultures' and 'settler/colonised cultures'.

In the last case a very powerful group is attempting to impose hegemony on a minor group to the point of exterminating any of its cultural heritage, coherency and ability to form a rival society.

This is true of imposed schooling where Welsh language was rooted out and punished. It was even more true of the boarding school scandal of Australia and Canada.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia ... ool_system

This is very different to an immigrant willingly moving to a country and assimilating.

I'm well aware of residential schools, the current missing issue of the missing women, and the chronic underfunding of most Native communities in Canada and that Canada is a model nation compared to what Australia does with their First Peoples. That doesn't change the fact that clinging to the wreckage of the past and trapping yourself in poverty by doing so is a terribly illogical choice. It's like a college graduate never leaving their thousand-person hometown while always whining about how they can't find work in their field.

Move on, get with the times, and you'll be better for it.

Why do you assume that these cultures are only 'the wreckage of the past' and that holding to them must inevitably lead to poverty and backwardsness? Do you believe it is impossible to be a Hopi person who is meaningfully present in the 21st century? Do you believe that Bundjalung people are incapable of accumulating material comfort?

Would you agree that your personal attitude to traditions, people , vapid small talk and the rest are very different to most of society and thus kinda irrelevant when it comes to discussing how societies interact?

Be as may.

The trend globally is away from religion and close family ties towards forming loose-knit collections of friends that form mutually supportive bonds. Combine this with the homogenization of cultures due to globalization, the internet, movies and games designed to sell everywhere from China, to the US, to Germany and I think my view is what the future looks like. How many people order food online just to avoid a phone conversation or use self-checkouts when possible for the same reason?

The past and its traditions are often rooted in older more ignorant times and, especially with things like religion, we're better off without them.

There is still a disconnect here. I'm presenting situations where someone s culture is taken away against their will by hegemonic settlers, your presenting situations where people voluntarily give it up.

I believe I addressed that already. We shouldn't have done that, but nor should we keep a culture or language on indefinite life support beyond its ability to self propagate. Things die, things go extinct, and its arrogance to think we can stop that from happening.

And no one is arguing that things cannot ever go away. What is being argued and fought for by Indigenous activists is the right and resources to try and fight for their culture, language, and very existence after generations of active attempts at genocide. Essentially, they are saying 'it might die if we don't act. It might die even if we do - but I'm not willing to let it go without a fight' - and you are saying 'well then, don't act, because who cares, right?'

On a personal note, my support for these positions comes from my sincere love of one of the modern west's most cherished values: Justice. Justice is not doing nothing to correct an injustice - it is taking action, even if it ultimately fails, to try and make good a wrong and restore a loss to whatever extent is possible. So when you say, 'it's arrogant to think we can stop a culture we murdered dying', I say, 'we have an obligation to try.' This is my culture - it is justice, and that is probably the best part of my culture, and certainly the part I have chosen to dedicate my life to.

[Jub]

You are, bluntly, wrong.

The goals of decolonization theorists and activists in CANZUS can be broadly summed up thus:
1. An end to systematic discrimination against Indigenous peoples by both state and private entities.
2. The destruction of the hierarchies of privilege that place settler wellbeing over Indigenous wellbeing and the structures that support these hierarchies.
3. The recognition of, and where sought, the restoration of sovereignty for Indigenous polities.
4. Reparations for the systematic theft of land, resources, and people.
5. Landback where possible and desired.
6. The recognition of, and recentering of, Indigenous cultures, languages, and epistemologies within their territories.

You may notice 'kill all the white people/kick all the white people back to Europe' is not on this list. This is because it is a fringe position, and one rarely genuinely espoused. You may also notice that I am speaking in broad terms and yet still managing to actually give you a fairly simple list of goals of decolonization theorists and advocates, because despite the practical requirements of each these goals being different from community to community, the goals themselves are largely uniform.

You are, again, bluntly wrong. While there is no 'blanket one size fits all answer', the actual goals of language and culture preservation and restoration efforts can still be enunciated with a degree of general application across CANZUS, just like that of decolonization advocates and theorists.

The goals of cultural and language preservation, restoration, and revitalization efforts in CANZUS can be summed up thus:
1. Immediate action to preserve as much knowledge as possible, consisting of both recording and transmitting knowledge from those who possess it where they are available.
2. Making more widely available, either to the Indigenous peoples or to all peoples,* this knowledge.
3. Longterm work to make this knowledge viable over the long term through day-to-day use and transmission through education and a recentering of Indigenous cultures within their territories.
4. Where the culture/language is already moribund, active reconstruction from what resources remain.

(*: Groups are divided. Some want to keep the knowledge internal and away from settlers because of the concern of further exploitation. The combination of decolonization and revitalization addresses this issue by rendering the circumstances of exploitation null.)

It's almost like it's a topic you've spent considerably more time and effort understanding than I have... Fancy that being the case in a thread where I said as much in my opening post.

Are you assuming that the specific examples I have given are some kind of general problem? Because a, they aren't, and b, it's not up to you. The examples I have given are of traditions that cannot be 'bent to reality' without being irretrievably altered. It is up to their caretakers and those learning from them to maintain their survival, but they need support to do so until transmission takes off again. This is not a decision that you either can make nor have any right to demand be made - you are not a stakeholder in it. You have, bluntly, no standing whatsoever.

You certainly made it sound that way when you asked for special treatment in terms of medical resources and brought up exactly that kind of outlier as part of your justification for doing so.

And again - you seem to now be operating under the assumption that the specific examples of this kind I have given - e.g. Initiatic traditions - are a broader trend than they are. The number of cases where there are elders who possess knowledge only they can possess are relatively few and far between and have to do primarily with specific stories, obligations, and initiatic rites, and not broader issues of culture and language.

I bring up the outliers because they're what I find baffling. The cultures that don't have such barriers make significantly more sense to me.

Great. So you support those who assimilate and adopt the culture of the majority, and not those who want to keep their culture alive in the face of genocide.* That's a nice position to maintain, so long as you aren't on the losing side. Now, would you care to explain why you are insinuating that a person cannot maintain, say, a Yuin identity while 'integrating with modern society'?

Some will be able to maintain their identity while moving away from home, many won't. The thrust of my point is that it's difficult to see reservations ever being properly self-sufficient and capable of generating a significant surplus either due to population, location, lack of resources, lack of technical knowledge, etc. Even in a utopia where the powers that be gave all the aid requested and then some, we're talking decades just to get the education there and then longer for populations to grow. Then add in possible genetic bottlenecks unless outside DNA is brought into the fold...

I'm certainly missing key information that tells me how saving these cultures and languages as living breathing things is possible but with what I know, I just don't see it.

(*: I trust you are aware of Wolfe's logic of elimination, right?)

I wasn't aware of it but having looked it up and read it, I have to ask, how does the genocide of the Native populations of CANZUS differ from those of antiquity that shaped the European attitude that lead, inevitably, to colonization? Should we also seek to undo the changes the Mongols brought with them? Should we encourage those who, for various reasons, choose to move from their country of origin to steadfastly remain apart for their new surroundings?

I simply don't see how anything about the current situation is different than those before it except for it being a current event and our modern attitudes towards such expansion and how to deal with the resulting pockets of unassimilated peoples having shifted.

No deep family connections is a sad thing, and I hope you are able to forge some.

I am untroubled by this lack. I am fulfilled by the relationships I have with the people I have chosen to include in my life. I weep for those tied to abusive families by blood and tradition.

But as to the rest - I take it by this you mean you are somehow not involved in matters of culture and thus feel qualified as an outsider to objectively judge cultures. In this, you are entirely mistaken. You are immersed in culture in everything you do no matter how little value you place on the 'nonsense' that most people rely on.

That is an odd assumption to have made and isn't why I made the statement that I did. I made it because while I am immersed in the culture of many places I don't find myself strongly bound to any of them. If I were to move to a new place I'd do so having made my best attempt to learn their language and culture before arriving so as to best fit in. Though saying that, I often fail to fit in within my current surroundings and am content with being exactly who I am.

1. Do you have a gender?

I generally use male pronouns, but I don't tie myself to it that strongly. If somebody were to call me by gender-neutral pronouns it wouldn't bother me. I'd question their sanity if they saw my beard and used female pronouns on me but would otherwise laugh and let them keep using them if it best suited them.

2. Do you wear clothes?

I've advocated for both public nudity and public displays of certain sexual acts (generally kink or BDSM related) on this board before. I wear clothes because it's easier than the alternative but generally am deeply unfashionable and buy the cheapest items that fit and are comfortable.

3. Do you work?

Sometimes, when it suits me. I've probably spent an equal amount of my adult life unemployed as I have employed.

4. Do you value the opinions of experts over non-experts, or vice versa?

I generally value those who specialize in a field above those who do not but that's a matter or accrued knowledge more than the cultural significance of their position.

5. Do you vote?

Yes, though I am personally for a vast reworking of the current system. I've advocated on this very forum for ensuring a certain base level of political knowledge before allowing people to vote and arguing that most people overly value choice when studies frequently find that people are happier with an illusion of easy choices versus making real choices with significant consequences attached.

6. Do you watch films or television, read, or play games?

I tend towards narrowcast platforms such as YouTube for most of my entertainment. There are rare films I still go to see but that's more of a social event than an active watching of a film. I do enjoy audiobooks and videogames though, but as I never claimed to be 100% removed from culture I don't see this as an issue.

(The irony of 'I don't believe in free will' immediately after congratulation Indigenous people who assimilate for making the same choice you would make is noted.)

There isn't a lot of good language around framing 'choices' as people following a path predetermined by physics and that they have no control over. Assume that anytime you see me refer to a choice that I'm talking about a predetermined event that we await the outcome of.

Once again, this is not a decision for you, and it is not 'preservation for preservation's sake' any more than recognizing the legitimacy of academic degrees is. Further, how would you amend these laws without fundamentally diluting their contents?

It's a good thing that I hold no power to enforce any of what we discuss here then. As for the laws, make a temporary amendment that acknowledges that laws can be bent under exceptional circumstances, define what those circumstances are, what constitutes their end, and revert the change when such conditions are met.

Well, for a start, Europe's experiences were largely carried out under a different modality from colonialism (with some notable exceptions) and undertook its transformation significantly longer ago, rendering many of the cultures in question quite thoroughly gone. For a second, CANZUS have large populations of people actively calling for this, while most European states don't through most of their territory. But while we're at it - why shouldn't we recognize, say, the right of the Flemish to maintain their culture? Why shouldn't we recognize the claim of the Basque people or the Kurds to exist, or encourage the revitalization of Scottish Gaelic, or Channel Isles Norman languages?

I don't advocate for the erasure of culture, I merely question the utilitarian value of preserving something that can no longer survive without indefinite external subsidy.

Also, you have constructed a false dichotomy. It is not a question of 'county sized micronations vs a mostly peaceful unified state'. It is a question of what rights are to be accorded to colonized peoples and whether the basis of colonization is acceptable. Very few decolonization proposals call for anything like the balkanization you suggest here - those that concern themselves with such fine detail usually propose large regional assemblies much like the EU, in fact!

Isn't that a major change from the below?



If such a unity between groups existed in pre-colonial times there would have been a greater trend towards organized resistance versus what actually happened.

Congratulations, you have missed the point entirely. I am aware that many Dutch people speak English - but they also speak Dutch. But if we are asking 'well, why don't people just do what makes sense and is easiest', then the Dutch should stop speaking Dutch at all and only speak English. English is a bigger language with a bigger cultural footprint globally. Dutch, by that standard, is an obsolete language that they should just do away with.

Of course, no one would actually suggest this, because it's absurd on its face.

A singular dominant world language would be amazing for the free exchange of ideas and probably would kill a ton of currently extant languages. Do you feel this loss would be a net negative for the world?

But let's take a moment. You mentioned the logic of assimilation. Well - logically, you should probably learn Chinese. You presumably have a more flexible mind than that of a befuddled Chinese senior citizen, and China is a rising power with increasing global projection and in Yue form Chinese is the 19th most spoken language in the world. You regularly deal with Chinese people who don't speak English. Logically, it would benefit you to learn to speak Yue (or Mandarin), and that's without touching on the general benefits of learning additional languages for cognition.

But you don't. Instead, you expect them to learn your language. Why is that?

They made the choice to come here where English is the common tongue. It behooves them to make some effort to communicate with those who already live here. It would have been beneficial for the same to have happened when contact with the Natives of CANZUS occurred and to either fit in with their society (should they allow it) or turn back home. Of course, contact was always going to be a disaster due to smallpox but even with the knowledge available back then there were better ways to handle things.

Except, of course, that your example doesn't show what you think it does. The Hong Kong diaspora maintains strong cultural links to Hong Kong, right? Many of its children learn Chinese (whether Cantonese or Mandarin), there's a significant flow back and forth of people visiting relatives, the food culture comes along for the ride, and so on. What you're actually pointing at is the opposite of total assimilation, which is what you're proposing for Indigenous peoples.

That does cause some issues, here and is part of why this city has the nickname of Hongcouver. That said, so long as they learn English and respect the basic societal norms I'm fine with them being here. Anybody who wants to make the effort to speak one of our national languages and fit in is more than welcome in my books as are those forced to flee here and come seeking asylum.

For those that refuse to make any attempt to fit in, I expect that they'd be happier in Hong Kong. Though given the political climate I can see why they've come here to see which way the wind blows on that issue.

Why do you assume that these cultures are only 'the wreckage of the past' and that holding to them must inevitably lead to poverty and backwardsness? Do you believe it is impossible to be a Hopi person who is meaningfully present in the 21st century? Do you believe that Bundjalung people are incapable of accumulating material comfort?

Are they currently doing so without leaving their current holdings? I know some groups are doing well for themselves and that many others aren't.

And no one is arguing that things cannot ever go away. What is being argued and fought for by Indigenous activists is the right and resources to try and fight for their culture, language, and very existence after generations of active attempts at genocide. Essentially, they are saying 'it might die if we don't act. It might die even if we do - but I'm not willing to let it go without a fight' - and you are saying 'well then, don't act, because who cares, right?'

When it comes down to it, you have the right of it. That said, see the very end of this post for what I actually want done.

I value the continued melting and blending of cultures and would love to have been born into a world with a language spoken by 90% or more of all who live on it. I hope we one day have a singular planetary government, hopefully run by a benevolent AI overload because we've proven that we can't be trusted to do the job. I dream of cities with each person allotted a prefabricated home and vehicles based on their needs, not their wants.

My utopia may well be your dystopia and I'm okay with that.

On a personal note, my support for these positions comes from my sincere love of one of the modern west's most cherished values: Justice. Justice is not doing nothing to correct an injustice - it is taking action, even if it ultimately fails, to try and make good a wrong and restore a loss to whatever extent is possible. So when you say, 'it's arrogant to think we can stop a culture we murdered dying', I say, 'we have an obligation to try.' This is my culture - it is justice, and that is probably the best part of my culture, and certainly the part I have chosen to dedicate my life to.

I don't think justice exists in the real world; as an idea it's wonderful it just never works in practice. The justest king living a thousand years ago would be unjust to our eyes just as we will be unjust to those so far removed from us. This isn't to suggest that I advocate for doing nothing, merely an aside.

My honest take is that we should give everybody enough to live comfortably* off of through a combination of global resource sharing and UBI. Along with this is ensuring that all areas have adequate infrastructure to support whatever standard of life is deemed sustainable* going forward. That should leave plenty of time and resources for communities and people to do whatever fulfills them. I oppose a bespoke solution to common problems.

*The standards of living, infrastructure, etc. would be linked to what is sustainable in both the production and ecological sense of the term.

TLDR;

1) We shouldn't have destroyed these cultures in the first place.
2) We should give resources to everybody equally so that every human can live at a comfortable level, not some here, some there, more to yet another group.
3) Things will be lost, scars will remain, don't fight for what was at the expense of what is.

[loomer]

It's almost like it's a topic you've spent considerably more time and effort understanding than I have... Fancy that being the case in a thread where I said as much in my opening post.

Yes. I'd have thought so too except you didn't just say 'I don't know, actually' and decided to equivocate. Again, to be blunt, Jub: As you recognize, I know a few things about this topic, while you know roughly nothing about it. Maybe you should consider that and recognize that your questions may be stupid, may be irrelevant, or may even be racist - and that, if you genuinely want to know more about the issue, you might be better served by listening as a junior partner in the conversation rather than trying to hold forth as an equal. Maybe you should listen when people who know a thing or two about a topic tell you to go and check some resources out because you aren't really equipped to meaningfully have a discussion until you do.

Are you assuming that the specific examples I have given are some kind of general problem? Because a, they aren't, and b, it's not up to you. The examples I have given are of traditions that cannot be 'bent to reality' without being irretrievably altered. It is up to their caretakers and those learning from them to maintain their survival, but they need support to do so until transmission takes off again. This is not a decision that you either can make nor have any right to demand be made - you are not a stakeholder in it. You have, bluntly, no standing whatsoever.

You certainly made it sound that way when you asked for special treatment in terms of medical resources and brought up exactly that kind of outlier as part of your justification for doing so.

Jub, are you basing your entire knowledge of Indigenous communities and cultures on one part of an argument I made about cultural triage?

Now, as for the rest. I did not ask for 'special treatment'. I asked for culturally appropriate triage principles, which is actually what all triage boils down to. In the Western model, we emphasize best chance of survival, which usually skews younger, but there is nothing innate about the raw concept of using resources effectively that must mandate that we select only the option that maximizes total lives saved. I further asked for an equitable distribution of resources needed to give Indigenous communities the same fighting chance as other communities, recognizing the special vulnerabilities of Indigenous communities created by systematic theft and dispossession. This too is not 'special treatment' - it is the minimum necessary to actually create a floor of equal chance.

Now, I'll also explain to you why I brought that outlier up. First, it is immediately comprehensible to settlers because we too have initiatic traditions. Second, I belong to several of those initiatic traditions, and so for me it is particularly potent. Third, it acts as a convenient marker around which less rarefied but still elder-contained wisdom can be gathered and considered.

And again - you seem to now be operating under the assumption that the specific examples of this kind I have given - e.g. Initiatic traditions - are a broader trend than they are. The number of cases where there are elders who possess knowledge only they can possess are relatively few and far between and have to do primarily with specific stories, obligations, and initiatic rites, and not broader issues of culture and language.

I bring up the outliers because they're what I find baffling. The cultures that don't have such barriers make significantly more sense to me.

And what cultures are those? Because I guarantee, in almost every society you will find the stratification of knowledge and the recognition of those who possess more or less of it with special titles and positions. Sometimes it will take the form of specific initiatic traditions, sometimes 'mere' academic traditions, but I can guarantee - it will be present in one shape or another.

Great. So you support those who assimilate and adopt the culture of the majority, and not those who want to keep their culture alive in the face of genocide.* That's a nice position to maintain, so long as you aren't on the losing side. Now, would you care to explain why you are insinuating that a person cannot maintain, say, a Yuin identity while 'integrating with modern society'?

Some will be able to maintain their identity while moving away from home, many won't. The thrust of my point is that it's difficult to see reservations ever being properly self-sufficient and capable of generating a significant surplus either due to population, location, lack of resources, lack of technical knowledge, etc. Even in a utopia where the powers that be gave all the aid requested and then some, we're talking decades just to get the education there and then longer for populations to grow. Then add in possible genetic bottlenecks unless outside DNA is brought into the fold...

I'm certainly missing key information that tells me how saving these cultures and languages as living breathing things is possible but with what I know, I just don't see it.

Oh, wow. Where to begin with this one.

First - why is it that you think reservations and remote communities have a, the locations they do, b, the lack of resources they do, and c, the lack of technical knowledge you believe they have? This is kind of an important question, because addressing this issue is literally the point of decolonization.

Second, why exactly shouldn't we undertake decades of restorative justice to people whose ancestral lands form the entire basis of our countries?

Three, no shit you're missing key information. Have you considered, I don't know, going and finding some of the resources I suggested in my first post to you? Have you considered actually engaging with the idea of decolonization, which is pretty explicitly geared towards creating the conditions necessary for Indigenous cultures and languages to survive and thrive?

(*: I trust you are aware of Wolfe's logic of elimination, right?)

I wasn't aware of it but having looked it up and read it, I have to ask, how does the genocide of the Native populations of CANZUS differ from those of antiquity that shaped the European attitude that lead, inevitably, to colonization? Should we also seek to undo the changes the Mongols brought with them? Should we encourage those who, for various reasons, choose to move from their country of origin to steadfastly remain apart for their new surroundings?

I simply don't see how anything about the current situation is different than those before it except for it being a current event and our modern attitudes towards such expansion and how to deal with the resulting pockets of unassimilated peoples having shifted.

'Hm, what is the difference between a murder in 1800 and a murder I am literally watching unfold before my eyes and have the potential ability to stop?'

Again, here is the difference: What we are discussing is happening now, to people who are still alive. It is not a distant historical event that cannot be feasibly undone. It is not something that is over. It is an active event unfolding while we live and breathe. This is an enormous difference.

You also point out, correctly, that our modern attitudes towards such things have shifted. This is, you might note, a difference. In fact, it's a pivotal one. I said in my previous post that my love of justice demands I work to support the causes I do. This is because I have no wish to carry the stain of inaction during a genocide with me for the rest of my life, or to constantly have the identity I possess be redefined against the Indigenous other. Justice for Indigenous peoples in these matters is, ultimately, also justice for me - and for CANZUS.

No deep family connections is a sad thing, and I hope you are able to forge some.

I am untroubled by this lack. I am fulfilled by the relationships I have with the people I have chosen to include in my life. I weep for those tied to abusive families by blood and tradition.

Fun fact. Family doesn't have to be based on blood or tradition. It can be people you choose - especially for those of us in the queer community. I have strong connections to my chosen family that exceed those of most of my blood relations.

But as to the rest - I take it by this you mean you are somehow not involved in matters of culture and thus feel qualified as an outsider to objectively judge cultures. In this, you are entirely mistaken. You are immersed in culture in everything you do no matter how little value you place on the 'nonsense' that most people rely on.

That is an odd assumption to have made and isn't why I made the statement that I did. I made it because while I am immersed in the culture of many places I don't find myself strongly bound to any of them. If I were to move to a new place I'd do so having made my best attempt to learn their language and culture before arriving so as to best fit in. Though saying that, I often fail to fit in within my current surroundings and am content with being exactly who I am.

I made the assumption because, Jub, I assume you try not to include extraneous information. Extraneous information isn't logical, and as Mr. Logic, I would thus assume you would exclude it. This then leads me to conclude that what you include is not extraneous, and must have some specific intent behind it and it must be relevant to the argument.

The irony here, of course, is that in your denial of my assumption you have actually just repeated my words but slightly differently. I have said 'you have invoked this to say you are beyond culture', and you have said 'I have invoked this to say I am not strongly bound to cultures'. This is the same thing phrased differently. So - no. The assumption I have made, Jub, is in fact correct. You have attempted to assert yourself as an outsider to the issue, capable of some kind of objective judgment.

1. Do you have a gender?

I generally use male pronouns, but I don't tie myself to it that strongly. If somebody were to call me by gender-neutral pronouns it wouldn't bother me. I'd question their sanity if they saw my beard and used female pronouns on me but would otherwise laugh and let them keep using them if it best suited them.

2. Do you wear clothes?

I've advocated for both public nudity and public displays of certain sexual acts (generally kink or BDSM related) on this board before. I wear clothes because it's easier than the alternative but generally am deeply unfashionable and buy the cheapest items that fit and are comfortable.

3. Do you work?

Sometimes, when it suits me. I've probably spent an equal amount of my adult life unemployed as I have employed.

4. Do you value the opinions of experts over non-experts, or vice versa?

I generally value those who specialize in a field above those who do not but that's a matter or accrued knowledge more than the cultural significance of their position.

5. Do you vote?

Yes, though I am personally for a vast reworking of the current system. I've advocated on this very forum for ensuring a certain base level of political knowledge before allowing people to vote and arguing that most people overly value choice when studies frequently find that people are happier with an illusion of easy choices versus making real choices with significant consequences attached.

6. Do you watch films or television, read, or play games?

I tend towards narrowcast platforms such as YouTube for most of my entertainment. There are rare films I still go to see but that's more of a social event than an active watching of a film. I do enjoy audiobooks and videogames though, but as I never claimed to be 100% removed from culture I don't see this as an issue.

Now, to take these in order.
1. Congratulations - you possess a culture-derived gender. Your decision to question the sanity of those who see a beard and use female pronouns is in fact nothing but an artefact of culture.
2. Congratulations - you wear culturally-derived clothing, and judge your clothing to be 'unfashionable'. The only means to judge fashionability is by the yardstick of the cultures we are embedded within.
3. Congratulations - you failed to spot the trap. The idea of 'work' is itself a cultural construct.
4. Congratulations - you have an enormous blindspot. Your preference for accrued knowledge over intuition is a cultural preference (a sound one, as far as I'm concerned - but a cultural one nonetheless).
5. Congratulations - you participate in a culturally-defined system of governance. You also want to refine that culturally-originated and defined system of governance in the furtherance of a cultural aim.
6. Congratulations - all these things are part of culture.

You also missed a few others, like how the epistemic framework of the questions themselves is culturally determined by the Western model, that the dialogue we are engaged in is itself governed by certain cultural norms, and that the questions were asked in English and not another language, but as those weren't explicit questions I won't mark you down for them.

You are not, as you have attempted to paint yourself, not attached to culture. You are as embedded within it as anyone else, as your answers demonstrate - yes, even with your disaffection with and belief in your own outsiderness. But that's no surprise, because literally every human being on the planet is thus enmeshed. Also, to be blunt with you: These are some seriously settler-ass posts you're making, what with the repeated calls that Indigenous peoples should just accept their place in the logic of elimination - a position for which there can be no basis other than a cultural one.

(The irony of 'I don't believe in free will' immediately after congratulation Indigenous people who assimilate for making the same choice you would make is noted.)

There isn't a lot of good language around framing 'choices' as people following a path predetermined by physics and that they have no control over. Assume that anytime you see me refer to a choice that I'm talking about a predetermined event that we await the outcome of.

Congratulations. You just rendered the entire concept of ethics, including the utilitarian ethics you like to invoke, meaningless. You also rendered this discussion pointless, but of course, you are now free to insist that I don't have a choice on whether to continue educating you or not because whatever decision I have made regarding this discussion is beyond my control.

Once again, this is not a decision for you, and it is not 'preservation for preservation's sake' any more than recognizing the legitimacy of academic degrees is. Further, how would you amend these laws without fundamentally diluting their contents?

It's a good thing that I hold no power to enforce any of what we discuss here then. As for the laws, make a temporary amendment that acknowledges that laws can be bent under exceptional circumstances, define what those circumstances are, what constitutes their end, and revert the change when such conditions are met.

Not all laws can be temporarily amended. And again - these specific ones are such that such an alteration would destroy them.

Let me give an example you might understand. Let's say you have a completely closed community that has no doctors, and medical licensing laws require that a doctor be trained and educated, with this training supervised by another doctor. You have no capacity to train and educate a doctor. You could, of course, just amend those laws to say 'anyone can be a doctor' - but the outcome is that whoever starts to call themselves a doctor is not recognizable as a doctor in the original sense of a trained expert in medicine. Would you say that, if you take such a course and allow a few people to start calling themselves a doctor, that they would resolve the issue and be qualified to train other doctors, as the original laws required?

Well, for a start, Europe's experiences were largely carried out under a different modality from colonialism (with some notable exceptions) and undertook its transformation significantly longer ago, rendering many of the cultures in question quite thoroughly gone. For a second, CANZUS have large populations of people actively calling for this, while most European states don't through most of their territory. But while we're at it - why shouldn't we recognize, say, the right of the Flemish to maintain their culture? Why shouldn't we recognize the claim of the Basque people or the Kurds to exist, or encourage the revitalization of Scottish Gaelic, or Channel Isles Norman languages?

I don't advocate for the erasure of culture, I merely question the utilitarian value of preserving something that can no longer survive without indefinite external subsidy.

Tell me. Why do you feel these cultures and languages can no longer survive without indefinite external subsidy? Do you have any evidence for this belief?

Also, you have constructed a false dichotomy. It is not a question of 'county sized micronations vs a mostly peaceful unified state'. It is a question of what rights are to be accorded to colonized peoples and whether the basis of colonization is acceptable. Very few decolonization proposals call for anything like the balkanization you suggest here - those that concern themselves with such fine detail usually propose large regional assemblies much like the EU, in fact!

Isn't that a major change from the below?



If such a unity between groups existed in pre-colonial times there would have been a greater trend towards organized resistance versus what actually happened.

This is one of those times, Jub, that the whole 'I don't actually know much about this subject' instinct should be kicking in. Decolonization proposals do not involve the restoration of what was, but the creation of a new existence. Decolonization advocates and theorists are in fact real, actual people who live in the real, actual world. They are aware that hey, we have these things called phones and cars now, and this neat tool called the internet, and so on. So they don't propose a total reversion to what was, because a, it's not possible, and b, it's not desirable. Instead, as I have said, where they concern themselves with the fine detail of exactly what the emergent polities might look like they advocate for things like large regional assemblies like the EU.

Oh, and such things actually did exist in the CONUS before colonization. Perhaps you've heard of the Iroquois confederacy, for instance?

Congratulations, you have missed the point entirely. I am aware that many Dutch people speak English - but they also speak Dutch. But if we are asking 'well, why don't people just do what makes sense and is easiest', then the Dutch should stop speaking Dutch at all and only speak English. English is a bigger language with a bigger cultural footprint globally. Dutch, by that standard, is an obsolete language that they should just do away with.

Of course, no one would actually suggest this, because it's absurd on its face.

A singular dominant world language would be amazing for the free exchange of ideas and probably would kill a ton of currently extant languages. Do you feel this loss would be a net negative for the world?

Actually, yes - and if you do some research I'm pretty sure you'll find that most people involved in linguistics and epistemology would agree. Languages aren't just means of communication - they are ways we perceive and interact with the world. They shape our ontologies and form the basis of our epistemologies. The loss of linguistic diversity is a loss of alternative ways of seeing and viewing the world at a time when such views are perhaps more important than ever.

Now, this doesn't mean that a single useful lingua franca wouldn't be helpful. That's why they emerge naturally over time - but again, let's note the Dutch example. Have the Dutch stopped speaking Dutch because they speak English? No - because they also like speaking Dutch.

But let's take a moment. You mentioned the logic of assimilation. Well - logically, you should probably learn Chinese. You presumably have a more flexible mind than that of a befuddled Chinese senior citizen, and China is a rising power with increasing global projection and in Yue form Chinese is the 19th most spoken language in the world. You regularly deal with Chinese people who don't speak English. Logically, it would benefit you to learn to speak Yue (or Mandarin), and that's without touching on the general benefits of learning additional languages for cognition.

But you don't. Instead, you expect them to learn your language. Why is that?

They made the choice to come here where English is the common tongue. It behooves them to make some effort to communicate with those who already live here. It would have been beneficial for the same to have happened when contact with the Natives of CANZUS occurred and to either fit in with their society (should they allow it) or turn back home. Of course, contact was always going to be a disaster due to smallpox but even with the knowledge available back then there were better ways to handle things.

I see. So, it actually just boils down to 'if you move somewhere, learn the language'. But Jub - that doesn't address the logic that you should learn Chinese. It would behoove you to learn the most spoken language family in the world - afterall, don't you want that single dominant world language?

Or is your position actually not about what's logically best, but what's simply easiest for you?

Except, of course, that your example doesn't show what you think it does. The Hong Kong diaspora maintains strong cultural links to Hong Kong, right? Many of its children learn Chinese (whether Cantonese or Mandarin), there's a significant flow back and forth of people visiting relatives, the food culture comes along for the ride, and so on. What you're actually pointing at is the opposite of total assimilation, which is what you're proposing for Indigenous peoples.

That does cause some issues, here and is part of why this city has the nickname of Hongcouver. That said, so long as they learn English and respect the basic societal norms I'm fine with them being here. Anybody who wants to make the effort to speak one of our national languages and fit in is more than welcome in my books as are those forced to flee here and come seeking asylum.

For those that refuse to make any attempt to fit in, I expect that they'd be happier in Hong Kong. Though given the political climate I can see why they've come here to see which way the wind blows on that issue.

Yes. And you see now why they aren't actually a perfect example of the inevitable total assimilation you propose we should expect Indigenous peoples to undertake?

Why do you assume that these cultures are only 'the wreckage of the past' and that holding to them must inevitably lead to poverty and backwardsness? Do you believe it is impossible to be a Hopi person who is meaningfully present in the 21st century? Do you believe that Bundjalung people are incapable of accumulating material comfort?

Are they currently doing so without leaving their current holdings? I know some groups are doing well for themselves and that many others aren't.

...Yes, fuckface, they are. Do five minutes of research for a change. But also, since you still don't seem to be getting it, it's question time again:

Why do you think reservations and remote Indigenous communities are the way they are? Why do you think even urbanized Indigenous peoples suffer significantly worse educational, economic, and health outcomes than Settler peoples?

And no one is arguing that things cannot ever go away. What is being argued and fought for by Indigenous activists is the right and resources to try and fight for their culture, language, and very existence after generations of active attempts at genocide. Essentially, they are saying 'it might die if we don't act. It might die even if we do - but I'm not willing to let it go without a fight' - and you are saying 'well then, don't act, because who cares, right?'

When it comes down to it, you have the right of it. That said, see the very end of this post for what I actually want done.

I value the continued melting and blending of cultures and would love to have been born into a world with a language spoken by 90% or more of all who live on it. I hope we one day have a singular planetary government, hopefully run by a benevolent AI overload because we've proven that we can't be trusted to do the job. I dream of cities with each person allotted a prefabricated home and vehicles based on their needs, not their wants.

My utopia may well be your dystopia and I'm okay with that.

If I have the right of it, then perhaps stop suggesting that Indigenous peoples stop fighting for their cultures.

Now, as for the rest - it'd be nice to have a shared language with everyone else. But such a shared language doesn't actually require the destruction of every other language, and certainly not Indigenous languages. Nor does your little utopia actually require people give up on their culture - in fact, if we have our hypothetical benevolent AI overlord and all our basic needs are met, we're fine and dandy to maintain culture.

Oh. You are aware that participation in culture is actually a need, not a want, right?

On a personal note, my support for these positions comes from my sincere love of one of the modern west's most cherished values: Justice. Justice is not doing nothing to correct an injustice - it is taking action, even if it ultimately fails, to try and make good a wrong and restore a loss to whatever extent is possible. So when you say, 'it's arrogant to think we can stop a culture we murdered dying', I say, 'we have an obligation to try.' This is my culture - it is justice, and that is probably the best part of my culture, and certainly the part I have chosen to dedicate my life to.

I don't think justice exists in the real world; as an idea it's wonderful it just never works in practice. The justest king living a thousand years ago would be unjust to our eyes just as we will be unjust to those so far removed from us. This isn't to suggest that I advocate for doing nothing, merely an aside.

Jub, my advice to you is to stop talking about shit you don't understand. I'll explain why below.

My honest take is that we should give everybody enough to live comfortably* off of through a combination of global resource sharing and UBI. Along with this is ensuring that all areas have adequate infrastructure to support whatever standard of life is deemed sustainable* going forward. That should leave plenty of time and resources for communities and people to do whatever fulfills them. I oppose a bespoke solution to common problems.

*The standards of living, infrastructure, etc. would be linked to what is sustainable in both the production and ecological sense of the term.

TLDR;

1) We shouldn't have destroyed these cultures in the first place.
2) We should give resources to everybody equally so that every human can live at a comfortable level, not some here, some there, more to yet another group.
3) Things will be lost, scars will remain, don't fight for what was at the expense of what is.

This, Jub, is actually you describing the thing you just said doesn't exist and can never work. Your honest take is that we should do justice. This is why I say you should stop talking about shit you don't understand - you can't be consistent with yourself when you don't know what you're talking about.

Now, we can actually breakdown your little utopian dream a little here to help you understand the ideas behind decolonization, if you can believe it! You want:
1. A fair and equal distribution of assets based on people's needs.
2. No 'bespoke solution to common problems'.

These positions are actually incompatible, because what you're describing at 1 cannot happen without 2. Every community's situation and needs are distinct, so if you actually want a fair and equal distribution of assets based on people's needs, this necessarily means bespoke solutions to common problems, because while the problems are common, the causes are not equally distributed.

Let's use a really simple example. A room is flooding to a certain depth, and in it , there are three people. One person is too short to stand above the floodwaters. One person is tall enough to stand above them, but only just. One person is tall enough to comfortably stand above them. You have three packing crates, two of which would allow the shortest person to stand equal in height to the tallest. One would do the same for the middle heighter.

If you give all three people a packing crate, you have achieved an equal distribution of assets. But the small person still drowns. This is an equal distribution that creates an unjust outcome. Alternatively, you can give the small person two crates and the middle person one crate, and keep everyone's heads comfortably above water. This is an equitable distribution that creates a just outcome.

(We might entertain a second variant that better illustrates the impact of settler-colonialism. All three people are the same height, and can just keep their heads above water if they don't do anything. One is in a pit. One is on a mound of soil from that pit. The third is just on even land. The man with the mound dug out the soil under the man in the pit. Originally, all three would have comfortably survived the flooding. But now, because the man with the mound stole the soil from the man in the pit, the man in the pit will drown. Of course, there are four options - do nothing; put the soil back in the pit to make everyone equal; pull everyone up onto the mound, or redistribute the mound.)

This is the principle of equity. In order to actually give people even odds - to make people equal - you sometimes need to prioritize some over others in the distribution of assets. Obviously, the application of equity in real life isn't quite so simple as in that example, or the famous cartoon of the people watching a baseball game. But when we're talking about situations of profound inequity, a blanket equal distribution of resources going forward doesn't fix anything, at least not without radical redistribution prior to the distributive phase. It only perpetuates the existing inequalities.

I strongly suggest - this being, you know, part of my specialty (and as you say, you prefer the knowledge of experts over that of laymen) - that you take the time to do a little reading on the principle of equity and how it is actually necessary to give effect to the principle of equality.

[Jub]

This topic is something you've clearly invested a lot into. For me, this is a topic I post in between customers at work and nothing more. You're getting top of mind, stream of consciousness style posts because that's all I care to give on this topic. For example, the numbered questions you asked, I considered giving a single answer that essentially said that when it comes to culture I tend to follow the path of least resistance and leaving it at that. I answered point by point because I was bored. Entertainment and mild intellectual stimulation are the cravings, this thread has been the snack that satisfies them.

As such, I doubt I'll be able to give you the answers you like or even the level of research required to form a valid answer. So I'm going to thank you for your time, this has been genuinely enlightening, and bow out here. I concede to your superior knowledge on the subject.

[madd0ct0r]

Oh well. I hope to pick this up again with you in a few years.

[Straha]

I will offer one way in which decolonization in Canada, the United States, and the Caribbean is very different than decolonizing the rest of the world: The legacy of slavery and Blackness.

What follows is simplified. If you're interested in a book that delves into this at great length I recommend Frank Wilderson's Red, White, and Black, or his most recent book Afropessimism.

While there are many approaches to decolonization, and many different ideas as to what the 'end goal' would look like, a very basic view of an extreme form of decolonizing Australia could look something like this:


- The Federal and State governments of Australia create commissions designed to find which aborginal groups inhabited the lands of Australia at the time of European arrival, and explores who their descendants based on culture, descent, or whatever other mechanisms might be.
- After those commissions render reports, the Federal and State Governments recognizes the sovereignty of those groups and descendants.
- Large scale money transfers are set up between the current governments and former governments.
- The Federal and State governments renounce their sovereignty, and cease their institutions. Australian citizenship is dissolved. Sovereignty over the land and people in it is transferred to the newly recognized governments. Former Australian citizens are given the option to either leave Australia to return to the land of their forebearers or to seek citizenship/residency with the new governments.

There are obviously problems with this, and no serious advocate of decolonization is advocating for something this blunt and far-reaching, but on a gut-level most people understand the logic here. There are two groups, the first being the settler-colonists who came from outside Australia, stole the land, genocided its peoples, and then enjoyed the fruits of those crimes and the second group being the native peoples who were genocided and whose lands, goods, etc. were all stolen. Now the former have to give up the stolen property and the profits that came with it to the latter. Problem, in a simplistic but efficient sense, solved.

(And, to make blunt because some yahoo always ignores this in threads like this: The above is not what anyone is advocating for in practice, nor is it something I will defend except as a point of contrast between the Americas and Australia.)

Except, in America, the land was built on the backs of Black folk who were also stolen from their own land in a separate brutal genocide and thrown into slavery. Importantly, that genocide didn't just take the people, but it stripped them of their culture. The phrase used to describe this is often "They went on the ship African, and came off of it Black." and there's a truth there. Core to mechanisms of slavery was the destruction of the cultural ties back to their original cultures, the absolute destruction of community amongst them so as to prevent communication, bonding, and revolt.

To apply the mechanism above of 1. taking away the land and its profits from the people who aren't descended, in a meaningful way, from natives and 2. giving it to the people who are so descended leaves a massive population who have now been dispossessed again. To put it simply, the transfer of sovereignty and property cannot account for Black folk in the equation.


This problem goes very deep. Rather than write the many pages more of how it throws everything else into a pretty stark and pessimistic light (hence the name Afropessimism) I'll simply say that this makes the study of these issues in the Americas far more laborious than it is elsewhere.

[madd0ct0r]

Elegantly put.