I find the logic behind this uncomfortable. This may help people try rationalise issues in the US or other colonialised regions but it’s actually a fairly absolutionist view of the issue - the chain dismisses any argument or discussion about what it means to be indigenous vs a settler as invalid.
At first glance that may not seem to be a big issue but lets invert this for a moment: I’m a white person living in Europe; does this stuff apply to me too? This absolutionist view is problematic - it’d also excuse the anti-immigration rhetoric of white nationalists in my continent. I’m an “indigenous” person in my country but I would not argue in favour of this chain or logic.
I can understand the motive - a deep sense of injustice and dismissal of one group by another “majority” group. But this is not the solution - this just stifles discussion and frames any discussion as if there is no valid opinion that does not conform to one narrative.
Indigenous vs colonial/settler/immigrant issues are not simple, they cannot be reduced or distilled in such an absolutionist way. You do not solve injustice or right the wrongs of the past by replacing it with a new type of injustice.
Yes, I suppose you’re right. In the end, we’re all immigrants; humans have moved everywhere across the earth since the beginning of humanity, and having moved definitely does not make you worth less as a person in the first place.
However, humans are social creatures and desire social and cultural belonging, and someone coming and forcibly taking everything that over many years has become associated with this culture away from them and replacing it with their own is very unjust. The above are certainly ways in which the settlers try to justify this, and with this in mind they are certainly invalid. But I do agree that it may not be as simple as they make it look.
I find the logic behind this uncomfortable. This may help people try rationalise issues in the US or other colonialised regions but it’s actually a fairly absolutionist view of the issue - the chain dismisses any argument or discussion about what it means to be indigenous vs a settler as invalid.
At first glance that may not seem to be a big issue but lets invert this for a moment: I’m a white person living in Europe; does this stuff apply to me too? This absolutionist view is problematic - it’d also excuse the anti-immigration rhetoric of white nationalists in my continent. I’m an “indigenous” person in my country but I would not argue in favour of this chain or logic.
I can understand the motive - a deep sense of injustice and dismissal of one group by another “majority” group. But this is not the solution - this just stifles discussion and frames any discussion as if there is no valid opinion that does not conform to one narrative.
Indigenous vs colonial/settler/immigrant issues are not simple, they cannot be reduced or distilled in such an absolutionist way. You do not solve injustice or right the wrongs of the past by replacing it with a new type of injustice.
Yes, I suppose you’re right. In the end, we’re all immigrants; humans have moved everywhere across the earth since the beginning of humanity, and having moved definitely does not make you worth less as a person in the first place.
However, humans are social creatures and desire social and cultural belonging, and someone coming and forcibly taking everything that over many years has become associated with this culture away from them and replacing it with their own is very unjust. The above are certainly ways in which the settlers try to justify this, and with this in mind they are certainly invalid. But I do agree that it may not be as simple as they make it look.