I find the logic behind this uncomfortable. This may help people try rationalise issues in the US or other colonialised regions but it’s actually a fairly absolutionist view of the issue - the chain dismisses any argument or discussion about what it means to be indigenous vs a settler as invalid.
At first glance that may not seem to be a big issue but lets invert this for a moment: I’m a white person living in Europe; does this stuff apply to me too? This absolutionist view is problematic - it’d also excuse the anti-immigration rhetoric of white nationalists in my continent. I’m an “indigenous” person in my country but I would not argue in favour of this chain or logic.
I can understand the motive - a deep sense of injustice and dismissal of one group by another “majority” group. But this is not the solution - this just stifles discussion and frames any discussion as if there is no valid opinion that does not conform to one narrative.
Indigenous vs colonial/settler/immigrant issues are not simple, they cannot be reduced or distilled in such an absolutionist way. You do not solve injustice or right the wrongs of the past by replacing it with a new type of injustice.
Yes, I suppose you’re right. In the end, we’re all immigrants; humans have moved everywhere across the earth since the beginning of humanity, and having moved definitely does not make you worth less as a person in the first place.
However, humans are social creatures and desire social and cultural belonging, and someone coming and forcibly taking everything that over many years has become associated with this culture away from them and replacing it with their own is very unjust. The above are certainly ways in which the settlers try to justify this, and with this in mind they are certainly invalid. But I do agree that it may not be as simple as they make it look.
I’m seriously not trying to be antagonizing, but help me out on the logic of number 5. I mean, indigenous tribes fought and conquered each other countless times, everywhere over the world, right? So how is that different from Europeans/whichever civ conquering them?
I’m also curious about this. Are we supposed to accept that land rights were created whenever writing first reached an area?
The first recorded people in an area were almost certainly not the first people to live there.
I am on the same page here. And also, we have to move on #7. Otherwise we will have permanent wars. All people rights are precious, regardless of genetics.
I mean, people have been stabbing each other since time immemorial, officer, what’s the big deal?
Is it wrong, now, for you and your culture to invade someone else and forcibly remove them from their land?
If no, then you don’t have modern morality and you’re likely making an argument like “we conquer people all the time, might makes right” etc.
If yes, then you have to apply that to benefits you and your society received and are still benefiting from. And that means making redress for past wrongs you personally didn’t commit. Otherwise the logic follows that the sin or crime only follows to the direct perpetrator and transferring that benefit to another absolves that person, especially when transferal wasn’t voluntary (inherited).
This doesn’t mean that descendants of colonizers must vacate all land. It means the society needs to have a frank and honest discussion about what redress means. This is at the heart of similar movements like slavery reparations. We can’t undo the wrongs of the past but we can stop making them and try to make it right to the descendants of those that were harmed.
Now this obviously can’t be taken back all the way into prehistory. As everyone acknowledged: humanity is a brutal species. But we can make redress for the most recent and often still ongoing wrongs. We should also attempt to address past wrongs but to the level appropriate to the passage of time, existence of descendants, etc.
We can see this happening now with the return of art that colonizers and other thieves took from other countries. We can’t undo the theft, but returning to the originating culture is a feasible solution. When talking about land stolen en masse a few hundreds of years ago, and the terrible atrocities committed to a still-existing culture to enforce that theft, there’s a variety of solutions, none of which are total return of all land. In all things we can’t unduly punish those existing now that didn’t have a say while also trying to do right to those still burdened by past atrocities.
These are just the ways bigotry is expressed. Don’t expect logic.
This reads a lot like the Narcissist’s Prayer.
That didn’t happen. And if it did, it wasn’t that bad. And if it was, that’s not a big deal. And if it is, that’s not my fault. And if it was, I didn’t mean it. And if I did, you deserved it.
Very similar mentalities. In both cases you have people who know what they are doing is wrong but don’t wish to admit it. So they craft justifications on why what they are doing is OK. Both tend to create cognitive dissonance that often leads to anger when confronted.
At least the second last one they say they didn’t mean it. reads last one Oh.
I didn’t read the article much, but it might be related to this topic somewhat. For perusal, if interested:
You are indigenous to the land you were born to, and you are very well entitled to defend it from those who would take it from you.
