The American media loves saying that, but does it really have a right to exist? Does an apartheid colonizing regime have the right to exist in someone else’s land?

  • robot_dog_with_gun [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    land ownership would be easier to find records for and is probably a decent proxy.

    if the other person’s “reeducate anyone who checked the caucasian box” idea is too extreme, maybe a compromise could be reeducation for anyone defending the use of confederate symbols.

    • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah that last bits fine. But land ownership seems a bit extreme, again, just owning land doesn’t signify anything.

        • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No it fucking doesn’t? A random ass ancestor owning land isn’t something you can pin on a random person in the modern day.

          What does that signify? Plus like I mentioned before, the vast majority are dirt poor subsistence farmers playing with second rate dirt while mega plantations owned by the bourgeoisie hog hundreds of square miles of prime land that’s operated by literal slaves. Those subsistence farmers aren’t really the vanguard of the settler colonial force.

          But imagine someone came up to you today and said, “Well it seems like one of your ancestors 250 years ago simply existed in a settler colonial area, even though they were dirt fucking poor, and we don’t have any evidence or documentation. Prepare for reeducation!” I’m sure you’d love that?