With most anti racists things most anarchists on this site talk about the poor idea of negotiating with the state to get them to repress poc less. For instance the response to police brutality and systemic racism is not to advocate for defunding the police or getting nice therapist cops. Its burn police precincts down, fight the polce in the street, dont call the cops, support vulnerable people in ways they don't need the cops.
Any attempt at anarchist to try and convince poc people to protest for reforming the police or begging the USA to be less racist is derided. What is special about indigenous people and land back that the naritive is that the best anti racist strategy is to protest against the USA and have indigenous people to try to convince the genocidal colonizers to give them land or reparations? Like most of the people running the US government hate indigenous people. Trying to convince genociders to give autonomy to the group they are genociding seems like a dead end tactically.
This question is pretty important bc for most indigenous people on reservations life is a struggle to survive. Why is the most advocated tactic for indigenous people seem to fundamentally reformist unlike most other responses from raddle to other injustices of the world.
Considering the other issues I would expect the response and tactical ideas for indigenous groups in the US to be like "defraud, robe and scam settlers to get the money you need to survive. Don't ask for reparations take the money and wealth u need to survive. use this fiscal advantage to buy their past ancestral land and leave the reservation or just squat on the land." Just generally applying anarchist methods for groups to gain autonomy and live lives where the state had less control. While keeping in mind the specific goals and challenges of an indigenous person or group.
The state control function is very important as the state control and forcing reliance of indigenous people on reservations on the government for food and housing is essential for them suppressing indigenounce people and removing their culture from the face of the earth. So, shouldn't the response for this try to rely less on state control not more? I feel like if advocating for any other marginalized group asking their oppressors to oppress them in a nicer way was advocated for it would be derided. But for land back and reparations its ok?
So I feel like I'm missing something. To be clear fuck the redditors and people on raddle shaming indigenous people from taking subsidies. If subsidies are available I think anyone should take them. Though, I think advocating for politicians to give out subsidies isntn a very good strategy in almost all situations.
I'm not trying to say I have the answers for indigenous groups as tactics have to be individualized but I just don't understand how land back and government reparations has become so valued on raddle. I got to be missing something.
For most of my life I was fine with reparations and land back but after reading more about understanding the indigenous struggle against the US government it seems to be a poor plan that won't work and follows the rich history of the US promising to treat indigenous groups better if they just assimilate more or be more peaceful but never giving more than just enough scraps to survive to the groups who tried compromise.
Isn't the situation of many indigenous people so perilous they can't afford to hope and pray settlers will decide to be nice? Wouldn't solutions advocating attack and taking what they need despite settler objection be a far more productive road to go down?
Edit: to clarify even if indigenous peoples get land back and quite a bit of reparations I'd still support stealing.