You forgot the pre-1700s picture where all of the US is red.
Bloodthirsty british and european settlers, greedy for land, wiped out hundreds of native tribes, each with rich cultures, art, languages, and beliefs. And most of this happened less than 150 years ago.
Clearing an entire continent of peoples is unprecendented in history, and what's worse, is that it's still ongoing, and no one has had to account for this earth-shattering crime.
I know who you are and I know you won't bother to read into this but for anyone else interested. Most of the native population was wiped out before the first English got here. Disease spreads and a bunch of Spaniards started spreading diseases in the 1500s.
Diseases did not conquer hundreds of tribes. The history of the new world is a one of campaigns of war and conquest against indigenous peoples. The fact that many are ignorant of this history is part of the whitewashing project. I linked some audiobooks below so you can learn this history.
If the nazis won, they would teach you about the shoah in exactly the same way western nations teach you about the colonization of the americas.
Diseases did not conquer hundreds of tribes.
Disease played a major role in the European's ability to conquer those tribes. It's not an either/or situation. It is true that the "Americas" that the English started colonizing had already been devastated by the contagions brought by the Spanish. The English undoubtedly would have found it far more difficult and maybe even impossible to conquer those hundreds of tribes had they not first been so severely depopulated by pandemic. Acknowledging this does not absolve or even lessen the atrocities committed by the English.
That's supposed to make it better?
"Indian reservations" are concentration camps
German labor camps were obviously concentration camps
and the strategic hamlet program were concentration camps
and ICE detention centers are concentration camps
either way it is always white people and their concentration camps
I get the sentiment, and by no means are the reservations good or something that should've been how it played out, but I do feel like putting them on the same level as ICE centers and concentration camps downplays just how bad those latter two really are/were.
I get the feeling you've not been told about all the death and disease Native Americans experienced in reservations, especially at the beginning. The only real difference is reservations did not have buildings...they were just wastelands.
To see diagram progressions like this is really sad. like a beautiful rainforest gradually being chipped away into nothing. same perps too considering the vast majority of Israelis are European
"Ah but you see, a long time has passed by! There's generations [of settler-colonialists] that have already lived through these times, and the people of today have nothing to do with their past!"
Motherfucker, landback means the LAND which is rightfully the Indigenous' is taken BACK, and it means you GO BACK too, no one should give a fuck about which gen. you're currently a part of.
They're going to say the exact same shit for Palestine if it's allowed to be festered long enough by settler-colonialists, as if it already hasn't been festered.
and it means you GO BACK too, no one should give a fuck about which gen. you’re currently a part of.
This would mean that like 99.9% of Earth's population has to move somewhere. Almost all land was fought over endlessly and changed metaphorical hands multiple times over. What we call "indigenous people" in a territory is usually just whoever was winning those wars before written history began.
What "landback" actually means is recognizing the systemic racism that was and still is perpetuated against the indigenous people by means of taking away their ancestral lands, slaughtering and enslaving their ancestors, and destroying their way of life; and addressing that racism by giving jurisdiction and sovereignty over their lands back to them. It doesn't mean that everyone but the indigenous people have to move out; descendants of colonizers born there are technically natives of that land too. The difference is that they get systemic advantages from their ancestry whereas indigenous people get systemic discrimination. This is the thing that ought to be addressed. (well, the horrifying economic and governance system that the colonizers brought and festered must be addressed too, but all three are tightly coupled together)
In the case of Israel the difference is that a lot of colonizers are first gen, they are not natives, they do have somewhere to "go back to", and they are actively perpetuating colonization and genocide rather than simply getting an advantage from their ancestors doing so. In such cases it of course makes sense for the decolonization effort to focus on direct expulsion of invaders.
In the extremely unlikely event that indigenous people got direct executive control over what happens in the continental united states, I don't think they'd even want the mass exodus of all white people. Nor do I think they'd want full cultural assimilation. My entire life, the prevailing narrative has always just been the end of systemic oppression. Very frequently I've heard indigenous rights activists demand the free use of/free travel across land for things like hunting, which is a pretty small ask. Just because this or that action would be justified, doesn't mean it's the action people want. IMO the second minority ethnic groups feel safe and represented these kinds of mass exodus narratives will fade away. Doubly so if there was a transition to socialism that went with it, and some thought went into identifying the different national identities (so something akin to a soviet of nationalities could be formed).
The last will be first. Landback and decolonization means putting the reigns into the hands of the indigenous people's hands, and letting go of the reigns, not just holding onto the reigns but giving the colonized people some of the reigns. The best settlers can hope for is to be treated kinder than they have treated the people whose land they stole. I myself was born in the US, and am still a settler here, just because I was born here does not absolve my role. It means I have a historic duty to help carry out decolonization and land back, from the back, not as a leading role.
Read Fanon.
This is an extremely white washed version of land back. Pretty sure land back means full control over what happens on that land, including what kind of people can live on it, something that is currently controlled exclusively by the colonial government.
If they're feeling generous they might give you the option to stay on the condition that you assimilate into their culture.
You know, the thing Europeans forced Indigenous peoples to do. Not saying settlers should be forced through violence to do so, but I think it's more than fair that if you're going to stay, you have to assimilate.
But you're not entitled to even assimilation if they just don't want you here. And they have plenty of reason not to want you here.
I know that as a 1st gen Chinese immigrant to Canada (I came here as a kid so wasn't my choice), if all the Indigenous groups where I live unambiguously told me to GTFO. I would in good conscience have to do so and hope I can use my birth certificate to reclaim Chinese citizenship. I'm by every definition a settler so it's only fair. Whatever struggles I have in China (namely language barrier since I can barely read Chinese) I will have to deal with and it's not on the Indigenous people to let me stay just because I can't survive anywhere else.
Where you go back to and what happens to you isn't the problem of the people you colonized. And by transferring that problem on to them, you are in fact perpetuating colonialism.
I call this the finders keepers rule of colonialism. The western supremacists think that as long as you
Then the finders keepers rule kicks in, and you get to keep anything you stole. They even will yell "no ethnostates!!" at indegenous peoples they evicted and stole land from.
The main point is that its not for anyone but indigenous peoples to determine what they want to do with their land.
Same perpetrators as well.
Of course they are. They are both prime examples of settler colonialism in action.
People forget that Israel started as a British colony
While OP show north america in the 1800s they failed to supply the original British mandate area from the 1920s which gives a bit perspective to the next images. Also note that while the Jewish leadership accepted the UN partition plan it was rejected by the Arab/Palestinian over and over.
And it is not a meme.
Why do the brits always think they're allowed to draw lines on territory that doesn't belong to them, and evict native peoples.
How does it provide any further perspective? "They actually don't deserve their land because they were colonized by the British"?
Why would you expect the Palestinians to accept a plan to give half of their land away to a violent colonial expansionist ideology. Should Poland have peacefully given half their land to Germany to avoid the invasion? Do you really think that would work anyway, or is it just an excuse to blame the victims for their own genocide?
Edit: Also, since then Palestine has called for the partition borders to be enforced, and Israel/their allies were the ones to deny it. Israel only ever supported the plan as a means to an end, further colonial expansion.
Also note that right before that Israeli leaders literally killed the UN mefiator Folke Bernadotte because they didn't like how his partition plan and then replaced him with a Zionist who gave all most if Palestine to Jews.
ah yes the basic 'but arabs rejected the partition!' argument?
is this similar to the terrible 'all palestinians are just arabs' angle so they should just just leave and give it to colonial settlers, just because?
Wait a sec, wasn't the majority of that land in the western states claimed by New Spain and then Mexico? How is the maker of this map qualifying "land of native nations"?
There were people there before New Spain and Mexico claimed the land. I imagine they're qualifying it using something like the map I linked.
Didn’t Mexico own a lot of that land in the Southwest?
funny thing is that Texas succeeded from Mexico not to join the US but because Mexico outlawed slavery.
Seceded
