Highly recommend reading the Red Deal, which is written by Indigenous socialists on what they think decolonisation should entail.
https://therednation.org/about-maisha/
Also keep in mind that every Indigenous community has different views on colonialism and the land and sovereignty issue. Some really just want to be left alone on their historical territory, others actively want to work with non-Indigenous people living on and around their ancestral land, and everything in between with tons of nuance. There is no singular “Indigenous attitide” on this though there does tend to be similar schools of thought. The most important thing in decolonization is to listen to all of them and respect their wishes.
This isn’t a meme.
It’s text over a picture. It’s certainly an element of culture passed between people.
I remember when someone adamantly tried to tell me that a copy-pasta wasn’t a meme….
And you’d be memeing if you tried to pull that shit on me all “ironic” like.
this isn’t a meme (slang)
tHiS iSn’T a mEmE
I’m glad you agree
Do you have a high res version of this not-meme?
Oh Jesus, it’s the same annoying guy that posts the stupid Dale Earnhardt “memes”.
This guy would upload the IRS tax handbook as a meme if he could
Hate to break it to you, but a meme, by definition, is political propaganda.
Yes, all those images you’ve been laughing at these years were part of a political project. They looove hiding in plain sight.
Ah yes the widespread political message that was “me and the boys out at 3am looking for beans”
How could we possibly have missed those political overtones.
Dude you must be on some extremely powerful drugs if you think all memes are political propaganda.
ah yes, the subliminal political message inherent in memes showing what my face looks like when i’m lying in bed and drop mh phone
I guess some white guy on youtube needs to explain it before people will see the connection.
Would you like to try?
Can you explain?
Actually not America but the UK
Interesting, and you just happen to stumble upon and share with us this crucially important and unknown trivia gem of a fact, right?
Welcome to the Internet. Do you know how it works?
Is this a bad time for you?
Is it a good time for you?
So the same as literally every other country in existence yeah?
Technically the Bri’ins (living in Bri’in) are indigenous.
“Oi Bruv, i’m indigginus.”
Nah, not even close. Educate yourself on the history of other countries before you try calling them out.
The whole “oh everyone is doing it” take is fascist as fuck as well. I hear it all the time from neoliberal monsters.
Yeah uhh… Not at all, actually.
Not really, actually.
That’s usually just an empire thing.
Canada too
That’s too bad, couldn’t find one in jpeg?
Fair point, but not really a meme.
This is probably the third meme in two days where the top comment says it’s not a meme.
Because they are not a meme
No, the genocide is still ongoing, it didn’t happen it is still happening.
Meanwhile the UK 1707-1914:
For fucks sake… 1st off, whether or not this qualifies as a “meme”, it doesn’t fit the accepted norm of what most people expect to see when they click on “memes”
Secondly, and this may sting a little, but peace as we know it is a relatively new thing in world history. I’ve seen a multitude of other comments here proclaiming all those other genocides were okay because they were thousands of years ago. It’s that “in my lifetime” mentality that just fucking grinds my gears. Through thousands of years of history, one genocide is cherry picked and held up as the worst ever, and the citizens who"benefitted" from it are supposed to pick up the tab? My ancestors weren’t Spanish or English, and my family has been here for about 130 years having come from Germany in 1890. How much of the tab am I supposed to pick up?
Fact of the matter is, the only constant in human history is war. We’re in a (relatively) peaceful era now, and that’s taking into account Ukraine/Russia, Israel/Palestine, and probably another 20 or 30 wars I’m not up to speed on because I’m American and our media doesn’t seem to actually inform us on world events from countries we don’t buy shit from.
Here is an interactive map that shows current ongoing conflicts around the world.
I’ve seen a multitude of other comments here proclaiming all those other genocides were okay because they were thousands of years ago.
Where did anyone say it was okay because it was longer ago? Please point me to it, because I read the entire thread and did not see this once.
The genocide of native new worlders is historically unprecedented and that is fact. I highly doubt that genocides on the same scale, magnitude and horror are commonplace throughout history. I would urge you to support your claim with evidence or examples if you are going to repeat it, otherwise it is entirely baseless.
How much of the tab am I supposed to pick up?
However much it takes to bring up the status of the natives to what it would have been had they not been massacred and expelled, and undo the propping up of Western civilization on their backs. If you’d like more specific examples, I’d be glad to give them to you. Just ask.
We’re in a (relatively) peaceful era now
Source? That’s a pretty big claim.
As I’m too stupid and it’s to early for me to do these inline…
Your 1st point, here’s one, had to scroll about 1/8 down the page for. Granted it doesn’t explicitly say it was “okay”, the point stands:
"China/Russia/Europe are largely inhabited by people whose ancestry traces back 1000s of years to the same region. That’s very different from North America, where most natives where killed (either through disease or “policy”).
That’s not to excuse their past behaviour (Europeans started the genocide in North America), but it’s still very different."
As you also wanted to be pointed to a source for genocides on the same or larger scale throughout history, allow me to search Wikipedia for you:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides
As to point 3, who exactly determines who is responsible and who will benefit from this paln to raise up America’s indigenous population to their proper station? Are 1st generation immigrants from Ghana going to be required to pay up? How about Natives who’s ancestry dates back to a tribe that exterminated another tribe? Surely that should also qualify as genocide?
And as to point 4, we, in the west, as I did point out I was American, are in a (relatively) peaceful time, which implies that throughout history it has not been, but I guess I need to spell it out for some people.
At the end of the day, you’re not looking to be enlightened or to learn anything, your post was directed to completely discount my points, or to “troll” I will admit I was getting heated reading some of the off the wall bullshit I was seeing, but superlatives aside, I stand by everything I’ve posted. I apologize if you TRULY didn’t know about other genocides, or if your worldview has jaded you to the point where you don’t initially see posts that clearly illustrate what I said, at least in the abstract, and you took the time to go back and reread them and allow it to sink in.
Feel free to pick apart this post, too. Nothing is more entertaining in a meme thread than for 2 idiots, myself included, to argue about genocide.🙂
Your first quotation is not about someone excusing a genocide because it happened a long time ago. They are saying that unlike the US, the current inhabitants in those regions can be traced back to the inhabitants thousands of years ago. Which means there wasn’t a major genocide or displacement of people. I am not endorsing this statement btw, I don’t know enough to confirm it. But it is not a condonation of genocide. It is in fact remarking that a genocide similar to what happened in North America did not happen in those other regions.
As you also wanted to be pointed to a source for genocides on the same or larger scale throughout history
You provided me a list of genocides on Wikipedia. None of them match the genocide against native Americans. Your link proves my point.
I guess I need to spell it out for some
I didn’t ask you to paraphrase or restate your point. I asked you to prove it or provide evidence. But I never expected you to be able to anyways, so don’t worry about it.
Ah, the internet…
The phrase “That’s not to excuse their past behaviour (Europeans started the genocide in North America), but it’s still very different” effectively translates to “Even though this happened, this is worse”.
If you bothered to look at that list, you’ll note the mention of the California Genocide of 1846. Reported casualties between 9,492 and 16,094, with other estimates as high as 120,000. Absolutely fucking horrible and a black mark on American history indeed. However, there are 31 other genocides on that list that are higher in number, with three of those even happening prior to California-
Dzungam 1755, 480,000-600,000 Taino 1492, 68,000-968,000 Albigensian 1209, 200,000-1,000,000
I guess it depends on how you define “genocide”, but since Wikipedia is generally using the accepted definition, I feel pretty safe in going with what they say.
And I did lay out proof, you’re just too caught up in whatever ideology to see it. Feel free to rebut, down vote, cry or whatever makes you feel better, but my point was the world is a horrible place, and terrible things happen to all kinds of groups of people. The “meme” that started all this IS a cherry picked reference to people who were wronged (I’m not disputing they were wronged, but so were… insert any other group of people here). Throughout history, most civilizations are founded on the conquering of another. As horrible as that is, it’s a fact. And after the fact, many of the remaining conqured are treated horribly. Also a fact.
Lay out some real numbers, cite an authoritative source (sources) and then we can talk. Until then, I hope the best for you and really wish we could get past this bickering bullshit. Life is too short, and trying to pin the sins of one’s father on the current generation isn’t solving shit. Work toward bettering peoples lives without having to exact revenge from people who didn’t have fuck all to do with it.
Oh, I stand corrected. A link to a Google doc. Should probably submit that to the Wikipedia article I linked as clearly thier information is flawed. You win an internet today.
It’s a link to a specific page of the book “American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World” By David Sannard. It’s not a Google doc.
Human history is not really a constant war, but that is how Americans have been taught history: as a sequence of wars.
What’s relatively new are the concept of mass conscription, economic warfare, and total war. The ability to enact war and destruction on a global and constant level is new. The brief cessations in conflict aren’t peace, you’re right, but it is also a newer concept that we are constantly in a forever war.
While I mostly agree, I never said constant war, but where I will disagree in a sense is, the prospect of total annihilation would have been a factor millennia ago had the technology been there. Pick your era, the Romans, the various Chinese dynasties, the English, etc… if they had the means, they would have likely used it, having zero regard for the impact it would have later, mostly due to a poor understanding of the technology. I do believe, at least between “the big three”, meaning the US, Russia and China, nuclear war is an extremely potent deterrent to all out war. It’s the “kids who want to be in the club” that worry me, everyone from NK to Israel. It sucks, but the atomic cat is out of the bag in a world we’re all forced to live in, and the polarization of politics and other bullshit only work to drive that wedge deeper and push us closer to… bad shit.
Sure. I get what you mean: greek antiquity has records on the decision to exterminate an entire island of people. The capacity is absolutely there.
But I think a better perspective here is human history is one full of technological and social advances that resolve and prevent conflict. Even, yes, that unbagged atomic cat. It can be power for civilian use or it can be a bomb to burn their shadows into the concrete. War is when the actual prize of humanity: civility, breaks down.
I agree with your points, and yes it’s a better perspective, however, that’s not the world we’re living in. There are some who are hell bent on wiping out continents of people due to any number of reasons ranging from beliefs to the exploitation of natural resources merely for financial gain. I really wish we did live in a world where the word “nuclear” invoked thoughts of clean(er), abundant and cheaper energy vs it invoking dread at the prospect of total annihilation.
deleted by creator
How many centuries, please tell me.
Hint: less than one.
And in many cases, is present reality and not past History at all.
Let’s do a slavery.
Your comment is equal measures funny and absurd to be honest. Please do explain how looking back on events, decisions made, etc to better frame modern happenings is so ridiculous.
But you and I did NOT. I see a lot of people online who can’t make the distinction.
EDIT: Thanks for replies, all. Some good conversation here
That doesn’t mean everyone living on stolen land gets a pass just because they weren’t the ones to steal it. They have an obligation to make it right.
How do you propose this be done? FAIRLY?
I know, this might sound crazy, but: Listening to the native Americans?
You don’t have to listen to the dead, have you? Just sayin’
Just sayin’ but there are still several native tribes still existing across the Americas. We can talk to them.
The American genocide wasn’t as thorough as you think it was.
Unfortunately it was pretty thorough, especially so on the East Coast. Many statesI don’t think they were trying to downplay the severity. I think they were just pointing out in a snarky way that there were survivors, and thus, we can ask their descendants these questions.
Land shouldn’t be owned indefinitely and passed through families. It’s not right to have created a dynasty based on one guy in the 1800s claiming everything in sight and having his idiot descendents be wealthy simply based on the fact. They didn’t do anything except inherent land.
Land that isn’t your primary home should have to be leased and not owned, that way it’s being used most effectively and not privatized for the sole benefit of the owner. It leads to land speculation and squatting of land that someone else would like to use.
Additionally, natural resources should also belong to the people and companies should have to pay fair compensation for their extraction.
Yeah but that isn’t what everyone is saying. They are saying give it all back to the native Americans and what? Move back to Europe?
Israel is more muddy people have been taking that land from eachother for millenia. Just because after the 2nd world war Israel was re-created after being stamped out prior to that. Who was the aggressor and the victim back then.
TBH, I don’t see what’s do great about Israel anyway. It just looks like a hot desert area with rocks everywhere.
My town just voted to give some land back to native American descendants by buying it from the current owners.
Define “make it right”. And for who, exactly?
Both sides must come to an agreement that both agree to, without coercion by sword. All involved.
You say stolen, everyone else says conquered.
… So, robbery on a national scale, then?
Are you new to this earth?
What’s your point?
My point is that this is the history of every country.
I agree. Nation-states are built on violence.
Does that make the genocide any better?
And the Conquered get the say in Pacified or not.
Right, conquered is worse because it implies it’s stolen via violence at a large scale. While just stolen could mean taken quietly and without violence. Thank you for addressing the seriousness of the issue.
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.
So by that logic, the Turks should give Constantinople back to the Romans?
False equivalence, that’s an entirely different historical context. Things can apply to one situation and not another
Explain. How is it a false equivalent? Romans controlled the city / region for over a thousand years and were later conqured, and their land stolen, to use the vernacular of this thread.
You’re oversimplifying in order to compare the two. Wildly different historical contexts with entirely unrelated events. Distilling both down to “area conquered” just so you can make a point is reductive.
Beyond that though, why does it matter honestly? Does the fact that a city was conquered in the 1400s invalidate anything mentioned so far?
Oversimplifing an empire being overthrown. Seems legit.
Yes.
If you had made it past the first sentence you’d see how legit it is.
we are still here
Yes, people don’t leave occupied land. It’s never happened historically and certainly won’t happen now, that’s the point of occupation. People can acknowledge what happened but in practical terms thinking that somehow all native land will be returned is just naive.
Oh well of course, at this point in time it’s been made extremely clear that natives will be getting absolutely no land back, even unoccupied land in the plains for example. There’s no major figures in government even remotely speaking on this stuff in a substantial way, so it may as well never happen. Fucked up stuff on top of all the other fucked up stuff.
And also to be fair, implying that most anyone here believes that all land should be returned is pretty naive in and of itself - there are absolutely more options than ALL OF THE LAND and NONE OF THE LAND
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.
The way I understand it is that even if we omit any ancestral blame for what happened, the Native Americans are still dealing with the impact while European descendants benefit from it. It’s kind of like if I went to school with a very bright kid that was horribly abused and kicked out into the streets, so they performed poorly and dropped out, allowing me to get into the best college possible and have a great career. Why should I have any compassion for this kid if I didn’t abuse them myself? Why would I help them get housed and into college? Why would I even acknowledge that they were abused and forced out of their home? I’m one that earned it by working hard to get into college and graduate.
This omits the possibility that this kid might have outperformed me and taken the college spot, leaving me to be in a worse off situation.
How far back in time are we going to enact justice? My 36x Great uncle Olaf never got his comeuppance (/s a little)
As far back as required to make those involved feel as if they were compensated. If you feel that 36x Great uncle Olaf’s loss affects your Family Today, then you should have your day in Court to make the case. However, as most likely 36x Great uncle Olaf was in fact not involved in anything in a currently oppressed People’s past, it’ll be a hard case to make.
Not 1000% on board with your analogy, but I understand and fully agree lol.
I just wish most people had the empathy and mental capacity to understand the intricacies of this stuff. It’s a hell of a lot easier to just say “uH wOw I ain’t payin reparations for no dang indians” than it is to actually think for a minute about and acknowledge the real history of where you live
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.
Doesn’t the pioneer woman’s family own the land involved in Killers of the Flower Moon? Pretty wild stuff
Yes. As well as all the oil money pumped out of OK over the Years.
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.
I like that approach. It’s in line with what Amnesty International is proposing for Isreal and Palestine
What about the tribes that lost wars to other tribes? Do they get their old land? How far back are we going?
Irrelevant, only considering land taken by settlers
Why is only one relevant? Is it the brutality of the war that matters? Or the recency?
Because those Tribes are not currently benefiting from the land they took. And most likely are in the same boat if they still exist.
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
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.
Entirely valid, all great points - and to clarify, specifically colonialism from the colonists that colonized the land, no pejorative usage against anyone here
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.
Saw that no one brought up this important piece of info, so here we go. According to the law of the land established by all the natives who lived on the land before the settlers came (the same natives who also wiped out neighboring tribes and inslaved them as to work the land the invading tribe took) Anyone who killed the people holding a piece of land before they arrived were then the rightful owners of that same land until someone else came to kill them or the laws changed. If anything the settlers did something no other group did during their time. They came to a land that wasn’t their own, and followed the laws of that land in such a way to incorporate themselves into the group living on it. Don’t really care who does what with this, but this thread wouldn’t be complete without this info.
olny the Navajo didn’t get fucked over
