Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

celebratedrecluse wrote

Wouldn't solutions advocating attack and taking what they need despite settler objection be a far more productive road to go down?

Yes, that is what land back means actually, in my understanding. There's nothing about making an ethnostate for indigenous people, that wouldn't even be remotely feasible and is just a strawman argument.

Definitely big ups on the land back. deconstruct the state, and stop protecting the exploiters who are destroying the land through "owning" it. whatever that really means, i mean it's not like air pollution or water pollution or tearing up the ground and destroying trees, doesn't affect the other parts of the land beyond the property line. Anyway, we can't survive if the land isn't back, so to speak. So, indigenous people regaining power over what happens on their traditional lands is one indispensible and very effective part of the overall plan to try to avoid as many people dying and getting pwn by climate change and generally the degradation of the environment we are all completely dependent on for food and stuff

2

lettuceLeafer OP wrote (edited )

Personally I'm not going to associate my idea with land back especially considering the response to my take was a lot of "shut tf up white settler" and a ban. So I don't think what I'm saying is land back if a bunch of pro land back anarchists get mad at me for my take.

Oh and to be clear I don't think land back would cause a ethnostate. I would clarify my position more but don't want to get banned again.

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

Hm, this is all very unclear, are you sure this space isn't accomodating to the discussion? If so, we could just DM about this, but I am curious what your perspective is regardless.

2