Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] wrote

−1

metocin OP wrote (edited )

Are you one of those types who spams '#notallmen' every time a woman complains about sexual assault? When you hear a POC rant about white supremacy, do you remind them that there are white people who are not racist?

Obviously not, my point is that calling myself a settler because I'm white on Turtle Island (even though I fight for decolonization) is like calling myself a rapist because I'm a man (even though I've never committed SA and fight against rape culture).

especially not when you still actively benefit from your whiteness.

That's my point, there's no way to undo that. You can be anti-racist and nobody will call you a racist, but I am labeled as a "settler" by birth even though I did nothing to earn that negative title other than be born. The same title used for Columbus and every other despicable man who actively did the settling. That doesn't make sense to me.

Your response didn't address my arguments, you just used identity politics against me. Like I said, aren't we supposed to be critical of that?

7

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

Edit: I don't like how I explained that. I want to try again. Your argument is that you shouldn't be called a settler because you believe you do decolonization and do enough to fight for indigenous peoples anti oppression that you shouldn't be called a settler. Tho this argument undermines itself. If you take problem with and don't even really understand what anarchists mean when they say settler you can't possibly be that great at decolonization. I could be wrong but that's my hunch. Like if you can't even understand how u are a settler I'm not sure how you can do decononization that well.

2

metocin OP wrote

I literally said I understand that I benefit from the settler state.

Explain to me why it makes sense to call Columbus a settler, Washington a settler, and a anarchist fighting for decolonization a settler. Why is it appropriate to use the same word? I think there is a big difference between perpetrating genocide and indirectly and undesirably benefitting from it.

7

lettuceLeafer wrote

You know who else are settlers babies born by Washington and many other colonists. The newborns aren't out there directly doing genocide but the r still settlers. The colonists who didn't even talk to any natives but just farmed tobacco or something we're still settlers.

I don't know your lifestyle exactly but I feel you probably are downsizing the amount of settling you perpetuate. Since I don't know your lifestyle I'll make someone up. Jim. Jim lives in the US and is a poor man who struggles to get by. He works at Starbucks lives with a roommate and barely gets by with little luxry.

Jim mostly goes to work, shops for nessesary stuff at a superstore, occasionally goes to a bar and mostly plays video games and takes care of household chores in his free time.

Now first off I don't need any more proof to call Him a settler bc his existance is doing the verb is settling indigenous peoples land which would make him a settler for doing the verb settling.

But now I want to talk about your point about how u only indirectly and undesirably benefit from it. I would be as bold to say that just like me Jim actively perpetuates genocide against indigenous people. Jim pays taxes to fund the US to continue it's current genocidal acts against indigenous people.

Funding genocide is perpetuating it. Jim works as a dog in the machine that keeps services running forth US. He buys products, works for a store and generally is a mode citizen. Even though Jim isn't in the military he is an essential element to keep the settler machine running and keeping indigenous people down. If the US didn't have the Jim's of the world it couldn't continue. Jim has a higher standard of living due to land being stolen and the US getting a boom in it's economy of settling. Jim can afford his computer and car because of imperialist conquest and provides money to those who did it. Jim is a good chunk of the motive for further conquest and oppression of indigenous groups. There is way less point to have indigenous people slave away in a mine if him doesn't pay for such products.

Most things about Jim's life perpetuates the settle rmachines, maintains it or gives it the purpose. Jim is a part of the machine he's no George Washington but he like millions of others plays their part in being the bulldozer flattening down the autonomy if indigenous people.

With an intersectional lense you can make a strong argument for him being unable to do something different. Plus I don't care for morality so no need to shame Jim. But it would be silly to not call the sky blue and Jim a settler. It's blatantly obvious to anyone with their eyes open and especially the indigenous people who are bulldozed over by the likes of Jim.

And if you ask, maybe Jim reads anti colonial texts, donates to indigenous people and even says he lives in so called Portland or the land of the indigenous group who used to live there. That still doesn't change the fact of Jims part in the colonialist machine and him actively settling.

5

flingwingin wrote

fam i had a few indigenous people at my work before i left, and guess what - it turns out we're all just there to get paid, and they also pay taxes, and lots of them own land and houses, wow crazy shit. Are they re-settling their stolen land? Is this progressive? Are they race traitors? Is this false-consciousness? Like fr how do u justify the fact that many native people are integrated into society (not by choice but because society is totalizing - you could say the same for whitey also or anyone else, no one is here by choice), and others are condemned to poverty and living a way that their ancestors also definitely didn't live, seeing as they were moved off their land, food sources wiped out, tribes and clans totally wiped out and others newly emerging as a resistance to all this shit - this isn't some people with a magical claim to the land. It's oppressed people plain and simple, and there are better ways to talk about systemic racism, or wealth inequality, or the cultural traumas of genocide, etc. that native people face, but the reality is that we're all stuck here together and we all gotta fight this shit together, and we all have to survive this shit together in the meantime too. So I don't understand how moralizing about white people trying to survive is helping anything at all when its true for everyone, you know?

7

lettuceLeafer wrote

I don't believe in morals. Like I said in this thread settler is a describer of relation to oppressive system rather than a moral failing or whatever.

3

flingwingin wrote

yeah i get that, but

>actively perpetuates the genocide of indigenous people

>stealing land

just because you don't believe in morals doesnt mean you aren't benefiting from them and actively perpetuating them ;)

anyways i'm halfway down to distinguish people living within civilization/s with a word, but settler is a pretty specific word and there's way better ways to go about it. Like for all the weird academic tendencies to stan, why this? Go for that xenofeminist or afro-pessimism shit tbh. Like yeah we're all pretty non-natural and shit, so let's fuck up society and stuff. Not this shit that identifies you with society and it's growth and interests, what's the good there?

But also the other half is "fuck this shit" because natives who were settled on weren't and aren't some fucking pristine natural marvel. They were active, alien people too. They migrated, journeyed, many did in fact have systems of property ownership (and slavery), they fought battles and wars, they had large-scale civilizations and agriculture and states, and they intermarried with other tribes. There's no one "native" group also except as characterized by white people settling here who didnt care to distinguish...

This isn't to slander native people or their history though, it's to point out that all good qualities we think of when we think of their societies and culture and way of life weren't random, they were chosen and actively oppositional to oppression. Their battles against oppression didnt begin with white people. We could probably learn a lot from their traditions, but we shouldnt think that everyone here pre-whitey was some sinless naive hippy. Like it seems all you people who talk about this settler shit don't think about what you're in interpolating native people as.

Tho some ppl here end up (backpedaling) to saying that basically settler just means you benefit from racism somewhat - i mean why do we need this weird Sakai bullshit and not normal racial critiques? Like yeah society is racist and fucked. But we don't gotta make up new words about it to show this. We all see it (except white ppl most of the time :P)

Like there's always more to the claims than just "you're benefiting and other people aren't" but it seems like that's always the backup claim so idk i just wanna head that off

7

metocin OP wrote

I appreciate your comments. It's hard to articulate these ideas in a way that respects indigenous people and acknowledges their history. Due to that history, and the way that liberal identity politics has interpreted it, it's hard to be critical of the use of terms or certain narratives without someone responding in bad faith and claiming you're ignorant or racist, or whatever. It's hard for so many people to see that there is always rooms for critique, for constructive criticism, even if it's coming from a gasp white person. I understand that many indigenous people will not want to hear these critiques, and I also understand that most white people have nothing helpful to say about these topics. But I think in a community such as this, where we are all open-minded and constantly engaging in critique, and also aware of indigenous history and struggle, we should be able to have these conversations without attacking someone for sharing their thoughts and asking questions. I don't think it's fair to compare me to someone ignorant on these issues when if I was that kind of person I probably wouldn't be on this site in the first place.

I think we are getting at the same thing, that the simplified narratives, relying on essentializing people based on ethnicity/race/colour, is ultimately going to be problematic because they are the same tools used by people we are opposed to. It doesn't matter that these things are currently accepted in radical spaces, we should be critiquing everything we believe because we're not liberals.

5

flingwingin wrote

Fr

I'm kinda especially disappointed that anarchists (online at least idk) take so much from academia automatically. Like the people teaching and writing stuff obviously arent all bad, but in general the institutions are there to pacify us and spread propaganda. There's no reason at all we should identify with university discourse.

also about constructive criticism from a white person, i've learned more n more that if you're white even if you're poor or think you're really radical or whatever, it's a long way from the basic insights of people who just live where the state is the open enemy. Like cultural differences can be huge. It doesnt mean anyone should be put above others absolutely like regardless of the validity of what they say or cause of color tho.(reminds me of a case where a cop infiltrator got into this mostly white anarchist(?) org and basically bullied them with social justice shit into looking past his attempts to fuck up the group and gain personal power. Same shit with this woman hired by some canadian energy company to disrupt an activist group who claimed that she couldnt bring up her past at all because it was too painful because of her abusive ex boyfriend. Using that shit to overlook red flags. Thats all)

3

metocin OP wrote

See this is what I wanted, this is actually a good response. Thank you for that.

I understand what you say about "settling by existence". But I'm not sure I agree. Bringing it back to the original use of the word, the first settlers made a choice. I and others did not make a choice, and for many of us we have no other choice than "settling". "Settler", unlike "White" has almost inherently a negative connotation. Is it fair to assign this negative connotation who has no choice in their existence?

Your arguement about taxes isn't convincing either as there is almost no choice there, as well as the fact that many indigenous people are paying taxes also.

Is a poor slav (born here or immigrated) a settler? What about a rich POC that works for the state or extractive industry? What level of support or benefits are required to be deemed a settler?

Again, thank you for giving me a thoughtful response and I hope you further try to convince me.

6

lettuceLeafer wrote

If it's a choice is kinda irrelevant. Sure you are coerced to pay taxes but it still hurts indigenous people so it still oppresses people.

Tho overall I'm not the best one to ask these kinda questions. I have quite different views if anti colonial actions n stuff. Plus I don't really care for drawing lin s of who is a settler or not. I was more arguing for a generality that I mostly agree with.

4

metocin OP wrote

Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to answer.

5

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

metocin OP wrote (edited )

Except that's not a free choice, because there is coercion and authority involved. I don't think that's a great argument coming from an anarchist.

I do what I can but if someone accuses me of perpetuating some bullshit fine.

The thing is, I'm not about to start an argument with an indigenous person if they call me a settler. But I'm not about to flog myself and self identify as a settler when if it was up to me I would not be. The same way I'm not going to call myself racist even though I may (probably) still have some internalized racism.

6

[deleted] wrote

0

metocin OP wrote

But can you blame somebody for their choice if it is not a free one?

If you gave your money to someone who mugged you, I wouldn't call you weak. You didn't really have a (free) choice.

I can not control what is outside of me the only person accountable for my choices is me

But that's my point. How can I blame you for a choice that is outside of your control? I can't blame you for any other circumstances of your birth.

I don't care if that doesn't fit your definition of anarchism.

Look we're not doing that thing where we argue over definitions. Anarchy is against coercion and authority right? I think that's widely accepted. How can we as anarchists place blame, guilt, or a negative moral label on somebody based on something they do (choice or not) that is a product of them being coerced or under authority?

I hope you know I'm just trying to have a discussion and I appreciate your response.

5

lettuceLeafer wrote

I view settler as more a relation to an oppressive system. Man to Mysogyny, straight to homophobia cis to queerphobia. Just like settler, man, Straight, cis are used as insults. But mostly they seem to be used as a way to describe ones relation to an oppressive system.

4

metocin OP wrote

I think this is the best and simplest explanation of the term and one that I have trouble disagreeing with. Thank you.

3

moonlune wrote

and a anarchist fighting for decolonization a settler

have you, personally, been called a settler? Do you take offense when black people call white people crackers?

0

metocin OP wrote

No, No.

This isn't about a white person being offended, I'm just trying to have a reasonable discussion about what I see as the incorrect use of a label but people would rather play the idpol game and accuse me of being ignorant and racist.

7

fortmis wrote

maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds like the OP is presenting a situation where a label fails to differentiate between people who act very differently from each other. Another way to phrase it might be... how do we benefit from calling all white people in colonized territory "settlers"? People might have some solid points to argue for it, and that would be more interesting to hear than general hostility towards metocin.

6

moonlune wrote (edited )

calling all white people in colonized territory "settlers"

Isn't that very close to the actual definitions of the word? White people occupying territory and imposing their way of life on locals. Americans live in a settler society and thus have to live with the "settler" tag.

1

flingwingin wrote

fam it seems like you're seeing things as if there is a unified white race

i hope to fuck all anarchists can at least agree that we should get rid of the idea of whiteness as a thing.

There are internal splits in any culture/group, and race is not the only category. E.g. white people impose on the whole ecosystem around them, their children, pets, and anyone within their race who dissents or has a different culture or way of life or beliefs.

4

fortmis wrote (edited )

I'm not so much interested in debating the definition as I am interested in the usefulness of the term. I think that in the long run it's to our benefit to be able to differentiate between active colonizers, and descendants of colonizers who uphold anti-colonialism values and actions.

4

metocin OP wrote

Again, you are just accusing me of being ignorant about decolonization or why people use the term settler. I understand why that term is used. My ancestors were settlers. But if I am not actively settling a land, how am I a settler? Being white in a colonized state already implies that I benefit from colonization, why use a term that compares me to those who committed the very real atrocities of colonization?

By simply being born am I guilty of the same crime as the Israelis stealing homes and land from Palestinians? I don't think could reasonably agree to that statement. But you would use the same word to describe both situations? Why?

2

lettuceLeafer wrote

You make it sound like you think to be a settler is to just go out hunting indigenous people when plenty of settlers activities were as tame as working on land that was stolen or aquured thru a treaty agreed to try threat of violence. The activities or what you do is probably a lot closer to the original settlers than what you make it out to be.

3

Garbear104 wrote

You'll never get a straight answer. Being racist and trying to piss people off is to fun for some people

−1

[deleted] wrote

−2

metocin OP wrote

I mean there's no way I can convince you of my knowledge of colonization and the struggles and suffering of indigenous people.

We're on a stupid website where we talk about stupid things everyday. Why cant I question the use of a stupid word?

I'm not clutching my pearls or anything. I just think its worth discussing and I figured that maybe in a very radical space such as this there would be people willing to talk about it, or explain why my argument is wrong, rather than just accuse me of being ignorant.

6

[deleted] wrote

−3

metocin OP wrote

Calling me an ignorant crybaby is not going to convince me why I'm wrong, have you considered that? I typed out my ideas in what I thought was thoroughly explained in a way that wouldn't bring any unnecessary judgement from the open-minded people here, but instead of trying to persuade me you just attacked me instead.

5

[deleted] wrote

−2

metocin OP wrote

I asked for thoughts and encouraged people to disagree. I thanked lettuceleafer for giving me a thoughtful, lengthy response. Tell yourself whatever you need to in order to feel better.

7

Garbear104 wrote

what if they do and your to lazy and arrogsnt to teach them? Seems that way to me at least.

4

fortmis wrote

styx, you're being pretty aggressive and hostile when you could be having a really interesting debate with the OP

2

[deleted] wrote

−2

metocin OP wrote

thinking that your mild discomfort with a word that I'm sure you've never been called in your face is somehow more important than the many nasty words that indigenous peoples are being called every fucking day

When did I say that?

You're just slandering me now.

3

[deleted] wrote

0

Garbear104 wrote

not really. You did by making flash accusations like they care more for words than indigneous people. Bad faith shit from all over today

2