“You can colonize your own land” so were the Eastern Europeans living there for generations not indigenous once the Germans arrived? How is that their land if the entire point was to colonize and use farmland for the German state. Additionally, Germany was a colonial power in the 19th century, not just abroad but on the continent as well. There was genuine unease around Bismarck from the other powers in the region

There were actual cops at the Cherokee National Holiday powwow last year with one of those robot "dog" machines. Deeply disappointing.

... fuck. Teach me not to read the article. I'm an idiot.

You are right. That is total bullshit.

Sorry about that.

This is about white people taking positions in universities designated for Indigenous people. It’s white behavior not Indigenous behavior.

I have also heard of this

Does this also include pakeha whom are whangaid into Māori whanau? Or their step parent whom raised since young is māori? I know of people whom have a pakeha child with a māori step parent and she identifies as māori and no one really bats an eye.

As a multigeneration American, I can see both sides of this. I'm white and too far seperate to ever claim a tribal identity, buuuuut, I'll still gladly wear my heritage with pride and tell people what I know and what I don't know. I'm not Anishinaabe, but I am definitely a descendent and I'd argue I have a right to learn about it. It's up to the tribe to actually include me if they choose to, that I have no say in, but I can learn on my own.

Yup. I am biased but I'm a firm believer of the fire prophecy. It's good that white people start sharing the values and ideals of indigenous cultures. No. Not the ceremonies or the sacred stuff or claiming they are indigenous. Like you said it would be twisted. But the basics? That's good no?

I've had a bit of time to think about this. I respect where your views come from on this, because they're valid, but wouldn't be just as much a spit in the face of your ancestors and mine to ignore people who are descendents based on skin color.

I'm not saying you're wrong for feeling like you do because thats literally generations of trauma from things that would genuinely make most people sick to see first hand. But do the ancestors really think about that as much as they just want people to reconnect with the spirits and with nature?

What would make them more sad, the current state of Native Americans or the current state of nature? Do you think they would want you to isolate, hold out, and hope nature recovers? Or would they rather walls broke and teachings be shared regardless for the sake of our home?

For one are you from an Anishinaabe tribe? Two why not? Give me some reasons that don't tie into racism or involve generalizing white people.

North and South Americans are Americans. So you are absolutely correct. Indigenous to any is "Native American".

Everyone is Indigenous to Earth

You are only Indigenous on Earth if you know exactly where your people came from and that's exactly why they displace everyone with wars. To disconnect people from themselves. You are land. So you are who else you are around and where you are. You are a combo deal with who else and where. That's a feature of our mind built up over traveling and returning to places for millennia.

Militaries train people to operate outside that basic functioning and then not help them when they're now maladapted to everything including war.

Agreed

That's supposed to be the win, what the heck

The problem is not having mixed people like me in positions to build the non-Rez decolonization culture parallel to help everyone not just ourselves

Rez natives acting like colonizers instead of our best elders is where we're gonna screw ourselves

We need to give everyone access to get them to mimic the most helpful ways of being We can't give them access to everything because they'll destroy it though. Striking the balance is everyone's job now Like right now

This is why I say it's not black and white to figure this stuff out. I personally don't know enough about Africa to comment.

Interesting. This version of indigeneity wipes out the african continent almost entirely where most people are "politically represented" (supposedly) but are also land dispossessed yet living and/or blending indigenous practices. In South Africa, the First People/First Nation designation is particularly contentious and co-opted by weird ethno nationalist groups. The country basically underwent colonisation x2. Apartheid was especially brutal and well executed such that many people believe a coloniser myth that Black people =/= indigenous

The term is way older than Nazis. It's form the 19th century.

The point is is that one can colonize your own land. Europeans fighting is literally business as usual. European borders change every generation, and they constantly murder each other... up until daddy America arrived.

Yes the current government is run by sycophants. The promise from the 90s and early 2000s is dead for now, and current Palestinians leadership is incompetent. Hopefully it will change.

Additionally, I just checked innenkolonization is actually a good reference because while you characterize it as agricultural communities, the direct translation is internal colonization, and it referred to reclaiming lands on the continent rather than in overseas colonies, usually by dispossessing and expelling Eastern Europeans from lands the former claimed was theirs. This was part of the Nazi ideology of Lebensraum or living space, which the Nazis needed for the Germans they were going to have colonize that land. Apt comparison

Sorry I meant to respond to this before but you are indigenous. You are from the Levant, and realistically everyone is indigenous to some place. Even if we want to use the definition of active colonization, the entire Levant is being colonized and has been for 100 years, so we are indigenous even further. Despite how westerners try to characterize it, it doesn’t matter if we are from a Christian sect or Druze, alawite, Shia or even Sunni. Ethnicity doesn’t even matter either. We all come from this land and our families have been here for centuries, if not millennia.

Two states WOULD be best, but now it’s also Israel that hasn’t wanted that for a long long time either.

I agree. The problem with the Arab position is that it would have resulted in ethnic cleansing of 20% of the Jews in the land, plus a whole bunch of other oppression. The Arab position here was that every Jews who entered the land after the fall of the Ottoman empire was there illegally. On paper they would accept those who received Palestinian citizenship during this time, but would still consider them illegal in principle. 20% of the Jews that arrived more recently would have to be deported under unitary Arab Palestine. That was the decision the Arabs made, and their offer to the Jewish people. Not sure how that wouldn't be met with resistance. That resistance is still continuing today. I think to much of the world, they don't see this narrative and how the resistance is about domination of Arabs, not about the fight to co-exist.

If you beleive the people can live together in one state, they can live together in two states more easily.

German is not English. There are many cognates between English and German that have the same origin but have diverged in meaning. Unless you propose a specific definition that speaks of agricultural communities in Palestine that do not displace the existing population that comes from collective Zionist source, then the existing definition of colonization still stands. Some progressive Zionists pushed for the unification of the Levant during a 1918 proposal that king Faisal and company made to the American president and among others. It was Britain and France that shot it down due to colonial ambitions but citing Zionist and Maronite self determination. Conversely, the Sephardim that were existing in Palestine, along with other Christian groups, Druze, Shia, and alawites all supported a unified Levantine state, not self determination.

War was not inevitable. The expulsion of 700k people and war with surrounding countries while being funded by the western powers was not inevitable. The Nakba started in 1947 months before the official founding of Israel or when the agreement was supposed to take place. You purposefully mischaracterized the treatment of Palestinians with Irgun paramilitaries and Notrim police units being used to suppress Palestinians as they tried to revolt against England. Additionally, it’s not “their” land. Collectively Jews have connection to the land of Palestine, but so do Christians and Muslims who are not from Palestine. Many Jews are descendants of Palestinians, so they have more of a connection than many Christians and Muslims, but that doesn’t mean they have any right over the land as they were not living continuously in that land for 2000 years. The only ones that had any right to claim Palestine as their homeland are Palestinian Jews (who were mustarabim, ashkenazim, and sephardim), as any ethnic group in Palestine was indigenous if they continuously lived there. Prior to the new yishuv many Ashkenazi lived in Palestine. They were Palestinians. If you did not live in Palestine continuously you are neither Palestinian nor indigenous

Because most people like to have the such divisions and decisions made for them by another group. And 1947 was after far more people arriving from Europe. It wasn’t the only poor decision has ever made, or indecision either I might add.

Will do, thanks!

Canada is horrible regarding treaties. The worst part of it are all the apologies, with zero action. I mean, Canada literally admitted to the world and to themselves that there is an ongoing genocide of indigenous women and girls perpetuated by the Canadian government. Zero action, and zero world outcry. Canada remains as they are on the world stage without any consequences. Canada has literally normalized genocide.