Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

5

supernice wrote (edited )

I live on land that was stolen and settled by invaders. I am not descended from those invaders/colonists though, but obviously just by being here, I am taking some benefit from what they did. I don't believe I have many (if any) advantages associated with my family history. In fact, I would go so far as to say that because of my family/race/place of origin, I am considered the current number one enemy of where I live.

I have considered, and sought out ways to leave this place. I have some ideas, but they are long term, as I would be affecting the lives in a major way of people I love.

2

Greyscalestarfield wrote

Who was gifted the land (by presumably god or some shit?

3

supernice wrote

Not sure what you mean. I don't believe anyone owns land. People just live on it, others show up and wipe them out and claim it for their own. That's basically the core of it anywhere it happens right?

In the case of where I live, that's certainly what happened.

5

md_ wrote

The nationalists who claim me as part of their nation also claim continuity with the cultures that colonised the island I live on approximately 3500 years ago. Whether there's really continuity is probably unknowable, but it doesn't matter because nations are imaginary things.

Of course, as far as ancestry goes, I don't have a clue about my genetics, nor I care to find out. I know that up to my grandparents generation, nationalists claimed us as part of their nation, but we generally weren't interested in those abstractions and imaginary communities, because we have to worry about subsistence and not dying in their stupid conflicts with people who belonged in other imaginary communities.

I do have some tangible benefits by virtue of being registered in state population registries as part of that nation they tell me I belong to. What I do about it is working towards dismantlement of said state, and for implementing some kind of social anarchism in its place.

4

retiredshared2 wrote

Just a question of clarification, when you say "colonization of the island", do you mean that there were other people there prior to that, and that your nation claims continuity with the culture that supplanted those other people, or do you mean colonization in the ecological sense, i.e., there were no humans before 3500 years ago?

4

md_ wrote (edited )

do you mean that there were other people there prior to that

Yes, there were humans before, and fragments of their non-Indo-European language are attested, but their culture has no continuity.

Summing up from Wikipedia: Cyprus was first settled by Homo Sapiens around 10,000 BCE. Around 1500 BCE settlement by Mycenaean Greeks became significant, from around 1100 BCE the non-Indo-European language (and probably the culture associated with it, but we don't know much about pre-Greek culture in Cyprus) started losing ground, and by 333 BCE it became fully Hellenised. Then several ways of other -isations followed, until ultimately 19th Century capital-N Nationalism became a thing.

your nation

It's not my nation, I don't belong to any. They claim me to be part of their nation, but they have no legitimacy in doing that.

2

ziq wrote

it's so surreal how many people eagerly fly the flag and sing the anthem of another nation. Nationalism I can almost understand, but nationalism for another nation (that is largely responsible for our problems; division) has always weirded me out.

4

md_ wrote

Nationalism I can almost understand, but nationalism for another nation

To be honest, I don't see why you would call it "nationalism for another nation". Nations are imaginary communities one may participate in. They don't have a "natural", "default", or "expected" nation that they should join, to make it weird for them to join a "different" one.

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

ziq wrote (edited )

and fuck nations, but your land is still your land. It's your culture, your food, your geography and your history. Pretending there's no difference between one land and another is silly imo. I love this land. My hands are scarred from the dirt and my belly is full with the food I pulled from it. I would feel out of place anywhere else.

1

md_ wrote

There's a saying: όπου γης και πατρίς, ubi bene ibi patria, home is where I lay my head to sleep.

Of course, I care much more and in a more visceral way about the politics of the place I live in. But that's because I live there, and I am affected by them. Not because of a metaphysical link to a national hivemind. Just because I experience the consequences immediately.

My culture and my history are things I build by constructing a model that privileges some facts over others (and that's an ambivalent description).

The food is definitely not "mine". There's hardly any area of culture that exhibits more syncretism than food.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

When you survive eating wild (and cultivated) plants that only grow here, that diet is a big part of who you are. It literally sustains you and sustained your ancestors for millennia.

In any other land the plants that grow and ecosystems that sustain them are completely different and I'd be lost.

1

md_ wrote

It literally sustains you and sustained your ancestors for millennia.

That concept of "ancestors" is too metaphysical for me to identify with. I personally don't feel that sort of non-material connection.

1

md_ wrote

genes

Why should I care about biological descent? Biology has never 1:1 matched culture. Culture makes vague appeal to biology every now and then, but even during the darkest times when "scientific racism" was instituted, culture ultimately remained arbitrary (see "Honorary Whites").

And in any case, if you throw your support behind the genes argument, you will undermine your point, because on average, we have statistically significant percentages of Greek and Turkish (and Armenian, and Iraqi, and Lebanese and other unsurprising sources) gene markers in male-descent DNA.

I don't want to buy into an argument that will nudge me towards, or even force me to identify as a nationality just because a genetic test says so. That line of thinking is alien to much of leftism, and definitely alien to anarchism.

call themselves

All humans do is call themselves things that are abstractions which don't exist in material/measurable form.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

md_ wrote (edited )

I was pointing out their displaced nationalism doesn't make sense even by their own nationalist rhetoric because they're not Greek/Turkish, they're cypriot.

This is where I disagree: There is no objective measure of being Greek/Turkish/Cypriot/whatever. If they feel Greek, they are Greeks. If they feel Turkish, they are Turkish. If they feel Cypriot, they are Cypriot. And when I feel I am none, I am none.

There's no misalignment from the "correct" or "typical". Nationality is self-declared set membership (without precluding influence and pressure towards a choice).

Cyprus wasn't even a nation until 1960 after centuries of colonialism, so there's a clear distinction between Cyprus the land and the 'Republic of Cyprus' nation.

That's the terrible legacy of 19th Century Nationalism. People in the West cannot think of States without thinking of Nation States. The definitions seem to have collapsed into one. Yet, outside the West, most states are not nation states - and those who try to invent a nation (say, China comes to mind), do that with dubious results and with a lot of oppression.

RoC doesn't necessarily have to have a nation attached to it. There wasn't one created in 1960 by virtue of Cyprus becoming sovereign.

And Greek and Turkish nationalisms are nationalisms "for another land". The reason they are conflicting nationalisms is exactly because they claim that this island is part of the Greek/Turkish territory. It is nationalism precisely for this land.

And I think there's some merit to the observation that the historical era of Nations is well past. Most Nations created after the 20th century cannot consolidate themselves and become "psychologically real". So there won't ever be a Cypriot Nation, and frankly, that's good. Post-nationalism must win.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

md_ wrote

All Nationalisms lead to violence, not just the "exocentric" ones. I really do not see any meaningful distinction between Greek/Turkish Nationalism, and this Cypriot (?) Nationalism that you are proposing as a more "expected" option.

Which is why it's perverse for cypriots to identify

Cypriot is just another identification people may choose, like they can choose Greek/Turkish/Taiwanese/Maori. It's not more physically real than the other options.

5

retiredshared2 wrote

I currently live in a settler colony, but would be descended from a more recent 'settler'; first generation from a European immigrant. I certainly still have unfair advantages due to my race, even though my family was historically poor and never benefited from colonies directly (instead working to death in mines in Europe), the fact that I'm white is enough to make me advantaged in this nation.

I'd love to give up the advantages, but I'm not sure how one could do that without returning to the European nations developed with African profits anyway, which is still privileging oneself based on colonialism. If you have any suggestions for me, I'm all ears, though.

3

Anarcropolis wrote

I'm in a similar situation here where I was born. I'd like to see indigenous populations given reparations, possibly in the form of land.

4

Blackbeard wrote

Good ol' USA here, so yes, history of brutal colonization. I'm not a descendant of those colonizers, my family having moved here just a couple of generations ago on both sides of my family. Unfortunately, the main advantages I've gained from my family is that I am a tall, white, blonde haired, blue eyed male. Because of this I have immense privilege, but ones I can't really give up. I also haven't used these privileges to their full advantages, so I'm a broke-ass person living paycheck to paycheck, so I'm not able to give any possessions or money to people who have been harmed by the racist imperialism of the country in which I reside, which I would happily do given the opportunity to do so.
I think that one of the best things that most of the average white citizens of the U.S. can do, is go making our own reparations. I know that by just being a white I benefit from the institutionalized racism, whether I want it or not. Therefore, I think giving away property and money, whenever possible, to people of color who are in need, is one of the most impactful things we can do in our immediate lives. Changing the culture is going to take a long time, but in the meantime, we can make a difference in people's lives right in our own community by sharing the bounty of our advantages.

1

retiredshared2 wrote (edited )

most of the world is now land that is "owned" (read: dominated) by colonialists. if you're born on land that hasn't been colonized, you're more of an exception than the rule. there are for example, isolated tribes in the amazon that live on their native land that hasn't had much outside influence, but they are a rarity. also, giving up advantages doesn't change anything... so your question is moot. it's not like people have any control over what their ancestors did.

1

snuggus wrote

Live in a settler colony. Dunno how much it benefits me...I'm biracial but pass as white if I'm real good about taking care of my unibrow. I'm not living life on easy mode but definitely not hard mode either. I don't know enough arabic to be comfortable in those spaces but white spaces also make me uncomfortable sometimes. Indigenous professor I had said she doesn't want her land back because of what we've done to it. But the reservation life is pure poverty. She joked about making a policy where indigenous families getting first dibs on houses for sale in the suburbs and metro area. It's a tricky situation all around. I have no answers unfortunately.

1

therealmidnite wrote

Yep, that's me. And no, I've never considered giving up my unfair advantages - probably because I'm not really sure whether they really are that advantageous, or even whether they're in a form that can be "given up" (spending twelve years being brainwashed by a fascist regime isn't actually something I think should be given to anybody else).

1

Greyscalestarfield wrote

Everyone. Because land rights have been dictated and decided by force and holding a force monopoly for Milena.

This guilt shit is for stupid people

3

ziq wrote

Everyone

does takin pride in ignorance make it easier to be you?

1

retiredshared2 wrote

despite your snarky comment, Greyscalestarfield is correct that most land is "owned" by colonialists unfortunately.

0

retiredshared2 wrote

can you pander more to the liberal guilt narrative? it's getting tiresome.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

Pretentious

0

retiredshared2 wrote (edited )

It's not pretentious at all, I was making the point that you're pandering to white guilt. It's the oppression olympics all over again. What kind of arrogance is it to ask people to give up their own privileges when you yourself are clearly privileged. Look in the mirror you hypocrite. Also, nobody chooses their lot in life, what kind of moron wants to make his life harder than it already is? Your question isn't coherent.

2

ziq wrote

You're trying to make whites feel guilty! You monster!! Whites didn't choose to lord over everyone else, what kind of moron would give up their lordship??

You don't get shit.

-1

retiredshared2 wrote

LORDSHIP? Wow, you are obsessed. You're all about race and ignoring social class. Social class is what matters nowadays. There are powerful black people that run things and rule over people too, they've served in office before. Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell... There are rich, powerful black people (Oprah Winfrey for example). You're so race-obsessed that you think every white person is lording over minorities. That's pretty distorted. Let me ask you a question. Poor white trailer park trash - who do they lord over? Nobody. Why? Because they're at the bottom of the social class. Telling me I don't get shit is not a coherent response either. Who's pretentious now?

1

ziq wrote

C L A S S R E D U C T I O N I S M

-1

retiredshared2 wrote (edited )

that's not class reductionism. class reductionism is if I said race was irrelevant. obviously race affects privileges, nobody denies that. i was pointing out that social class has more of an effect on someones "standing" than their race does.

1

ziq wrote

"class is all that matters"

"that's not class reductionism"

fuck yourself

-1

retiredshared2 wrote

That's not a direct quote. I said class is what matters as a short-hand, I never said ONLY class matters. I was emphasizing that class seems to have more influence than race on social standing (ever heard of the Wabenzi?)

0

OKC wrote

Me and no because everything I have I worked for myself.