this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
571 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

1357 readers
43 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 40 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Of course I’m gonna assume good faith from you here, but I feel like some people boil down issues like this to “well I mean I didn’t do it so stop complaining”, and that’s wildly reductive and irresponsible at minimum.

Arguing the situation in this way sidesteps the uncomfortable and inconvenient reality that the United States is yet still occupying native land, whether it be Hawai’i, Alaska, or the contiguous territories. Yes it’s entirely possible that mine or your ancestors didn’t perpetuate these things as immigration is and has always been ongoing, but the point everyone misses is that we are still here.

I couldn’t possibly imagine belittling natives for acknowledging the fact that their land was taken from them by force. Some real colonialist shit.

[–] Blapoo@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I feel you, and also acknowledge it is a hairy subject on a grand scale.

I also try to frame the issue in the actual, real moment. I try my damndest to do as little harm as humanly possible to anyone. Should I be forced to give money to someone affected? Land? Should I be punished?

Who benefits? A grandson of someone displaced? A great great grandson? Whole family trees? How do you make shit like this right after so much time?

Mostly, I'm trying to encourage thought and discussion. Fundamentally, I think people should be judged on their own merits and actions, not their lineage.

[–] nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That will always be an issue until the US government actually has real communication and cooperation with native people.

I don’t necessarily think that citizens of occupied land are automatically responsible for the past actions of a government (not to say that’s what you implied), but said government that committed the atrocities is. As far as the other part of the equation, I suppose the beneficiaries should be determined by the natives themselves.

[–] Blapoo@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago
[–] TigrisMorte@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The outcome needs to be negotiated and yes, the Tax Payer should foot the bill for the redress for the actions of the State and individual wealthy Families should foot the bill for the crimes their wealth stems from. For example: the entirety of Oklahoma's rather impressively inhumane treatment of the Native Tribes needs to be dealt with as the People that profited from the malfeasance are still holding the proceeds of those crimes.

[–] ClarissaDarling 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Doesn't the pioneer woman's family own the land involved in Killers of the Flower Moon? Pretty wild stuff

[–] TigrisMorte@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Yes. As well as all the oil money pumped out of OK over the Years.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lukini 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What about the tribes that lost wars to other tribes? Do they get their old land? How far back are we going?

[–] nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Irrelevant, only considering land taken by settlers

[–] lukini 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Why is only one relevant? Is it the brutality of the war that matters? Or the recency?

[–] Perfide@reddthat.com 6 points 1 year ago

It's the control. If one Native tribe still controlled the ancestral grounds of another tribe, then you probably would have some people calling that out... but they don't. The US government has ALL the control, every tribe within US territory, and all of their land, is at the governments mercy.

[–] TigrisMorte@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Because those Tribes are not currently benefiting from the land they took. And most likely are in the same boat if they still exist.

[–] nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No reason to not give you the benefit of the doubt, but you’re giving off heavy “they were already killing each other so it’s no big deal” vibes. No insult intended, just what I’m picking up.

Intertribal conflict is the tribes’ business, colonizing and displacing is colonists’ business. To be clear, external invasion is the concern here

[–] lukini 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nope not that at all. I'm against all war is all. And many people in many countries all around the world are benefiting from awful wars that happened centuries before they were born, possibly from people they aren't even descended from. To call me and anyone else who moved to the US afterwards "colonists" is imo a misrepresentation and unfair. And I'm not saying the native Americans don't deserve more than they're been given so far.

My point is more getting people thinking about how tribes that early Americans wronged were also wronged before that. If we fix things to return them to how it was, why does the final state of tribes before European arrival get chosen as the correct state? We likely have no idea who was on specific land first here in America. We just know the final state and some of the preceding wars before then. Keep going back and there's always a new victim.

[–] nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

Entirely valid, all great points - and to clarify, specifically colonialism from the colonists that colonized the land, no pejorative usage against anyone here