So this is a topic being talked about more in the wake of Palestine, but even the recent protest in LA. People wonder why they waved Mexican flags because that land used to be Mexico and they want to return to it.
I think we will see this turn into a liberation struggle.
BIPOC resistance has been growing a ton in America with Native Americans expressing more interest in armed struggle to drive settlers from their land. Remember white people even being in America is against the UN charter and native Americans have the right to demand their land back
Even in Europe the Sami people are the rightful indigenous people of Europe and they to are struggling with the governments of Germany,Norway and Sweden over things like infrastructure intruding on their grazing land. So what do you support in terms of tactics and targets ? I will list some groups and their tactics and ask what you support.
This raises an honest and difficult question: what forms of resistance are morally or strategically supportable in these struggles? Different movements have taken different paths:
ANC (South Africa) Emphasized avoiding civilian harm, focused on sabotage of state infrastructure.
FLN (Algeria) Primarily attacked colonial structures and security forces, but some attacks affected civilians.
ZANU/ZAPU (Zimbabwe) More indiscriminate, targeting white settlers broadly.
Where do you personally draw the line when it comes to resistance in a settler colonial state like the U.S.? What tactics do you believe are justified, and against what kinds of targets symbolic, institutional, or broader?”
yikes first off white genocide is a myth
second indigenous people fighting for their land back is not white genocide.
I never said white genocide. That’s the problem here - you’re talking just like a fascist, but from a position of the oppressed. Which is to say, you’re talking just like a fascist
You’re talking about taking the land (soil) back for the indigenous people (blood). You’re not talking about benefiting people. You’re not talking about fixing problems and making life better.
Just taking. Take our county back. Take our land back. Drive out the invaders. Sound familiar?
The thought “white genocide” genuinely never crossed my mind in all of this. Because I’m not a fascist. I just know when you combine racial lines and fascism, you’re talking ethno-state, which always means genocide. In this case, who gets genocided? Everyone but the in-group, starting with the most disadvantaged and physically identifiable and working inwards from there.
Instead I think of just people, all living in an oppressive system. I don’t care that some are less oppressed, I don’t care about what was taken from people generations ago or who “deserves” the land. I care about reducing the oppression. Human dignity.
Not what we can take, what we can give and what must be taken to give that to the people. All the people.
You’re framing this just like the Nazis do, it doesn’t matter if you flip the “in group” to be a minority or more oppressed group. You’re still using the same framework, which there is a descriptive term for: Fascism
If they started genociding white people it would be though. History is not a zero sum game where it’s OK for the natives to do to white people what they did to the natives. You can’t exactly repatriate people that were born and raised somewhere to a country / continent that they have no ties to besides distant ancestors. I’m not saying land back is inherently genocidal but what actually is a way to go about it that doesn’t involve an ethnic cleansing?