Indigenous people as a general rule are very open for people willing to integrate, which includes Palestinians who welcomed the first Jewish immigrants until they began building a nation state
I’m talking in the context of land back movements, as in “stolen land should be given back to make things fair” (i.e. the most wide-spread user of stolen land narratives, whose goal is the creation of many ethnostates), and not about if indigenous people are genetically pro-immigration or whatever.
So you think Land Back means genocide the settlers? What I said also applies to Land Back movements. They are willing to live side by side with former oppressors under the condition that they stop the oppression. It’s not blood and soil. Far from it.
It’s not “genocide the settlers”, but give them national determination on ethnic grounds aka ethnonationalism, which doesn’t liberate shit other than the national bourgeois of the indigenous groups - for indigenous workers, all it’d change is the color of the gallows, it’s wage labor and oppression all the way for them. Text on left-wing nationalism if interested
Besides, don’t you think this type of nationalism would inherently breed ethnic hatred, since they’re breaking free from oppression on racial rather than class-based grounds? Ask a Serb what they think of the Turkish!
It’s also literally blood and soil hitlerite narrative, as “stolen land” presupposes that land is somehow inherently private property of ethnic groups (private property is invention of class societies) rather than it materially not belonging to anyone.
“Stolen land” narrative isn’t about freedom, it’s a nationalistic delusion that would only breed division.
You can critically support left wing nationalism. The Algerian liberation movement was a nationalist effort that resulted in Algeria no longer being a colony of France. Of course, Algeria is not a communist utopia, they are still ruled by their bourgeoise, but the lives of average Algerians are indubitably better now than when it was a colony, just as lives of poor Native Americans would be better if they also were not ruled by the settler colonialists who are still doing genocide to them.
I still don’t get your jump from “stolen land” to “national liberation”. Left nationalisms don’t use the Land Back rhetoric, neither do Land Back activists necessarily talk about national liberation. Land Back is about stewardship of land, not about a Native American nation state. And while I would prefer a No State solution for South West Asia (or the whole world), this doesn’t stop me from rallying with people who demand a binational One State solution.
There is more than one battle to fight and while I respect that people pick one battle, we need solidarity and synergy between them. I see a lot of harm in your class reductionist approach. Everything that goes against the most privileged of the oppressed groups divides the working class. No, being against imperialism doesn’t make me a nationalist.
And I still don’t get why you brought up Israel. What is your idea? Would it benefit the Palestinians if they focused more on the white working class of the global north?
“stolen land” presupposes that land is somehow inherently private property of ethnic groups
No because there are other ways of ownership and other ways of relating to land that private property.
Indigenous people as a general rule are very open for people willing to integrate, which includes Palestinians who welcomed the first Jewish immigrants until they began building a nation state
I’m talking in the context of land back movements, as in “stolen land should be given back to make things fair” (i.e. the most wide-spread user of stolen land narratives, whose goal is the creation of many ethnostates), and not about if indigenous people are genetically pro-immigration or whatever.
So you think Land Back means genocide the settlers? What I said also applies to Land Back movements. They are willing to live side by side with former oppressors under the condition that they stop the oppression. It’s not blood and soil. Far from it.
It’s not “genocide the settlers”, but give them national determination on ethnic grounds aka ethnonationalism, which doesn’t liberate shit other than the national bourgeois of the indigenous groups - for indigenous workers, all it’d change is the color of the gallows, it’s wage labor and oppression all the way for them. Text on left-wing nationalism if interested
Besides, don’t you think this type of nationalism would inherently breed ethnic hatred, since they’re breaking free from oppression on racial rather than class-based grounds? Ask a Serb what they think of the Turkish!
It’s also literally blood and soil hitlerite narrative, as “stolen land” presupposes that land is somehow inherently private property of ethnic groups (private property is invention of class societies) rather than it materially not belonging to anyone.
“Stolen land” narrative isn’t about freedom, it’s a nationalistic delusion that would only breed division.
You can critically support left wing nationalism. The Algerian liberation movement was a nationalist effort that resulted in Algeria no longer being a colony of France. Of course, Algeria is not a communist utopia, they are still ruled by their bourgeoise, but the lives of average Algerians are indubitably better now than when it was a colony, just as lives of poor Native Americans would be better if they also were not ruled by the settler colonialists who are still doing genocide to them.
I still don’t get your jump from “stolen land” to “national liberation”. Left nationalisms don’t use the Land Back rhetoric, neither do Land Back activists necessarily talk about national liberation. Land Back is about stewardship of land, not about a Native American nation state. And while I would prefer a No State solution for South West Asia (or the whole world), this doesn’t stop me from rallying with people who demand a binational One State solution.
There is more than one battle to fight and while I respect that people pick one battle, we need solidarity and synergy between them. I see a lot of harm in your class reductionist approach. Everything that goes against the most privileged of the oppressed groups divides the working class. No, being against imperialism doesn’t make me a nationalist.
And I still don’t get why you brought up Israel. What is your idea? Would it benefit the Palestinians if they focused more on the white working class of the global north?
No because there are other ways of ownership and other ways of relating to land that private property.