732
"They're the same picture"
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2025
732 points (94.1% liked)
Memes
51529 readers
1391 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
At what scale does a genocide become bad enough to deport everyone? Without written history, it's hard to say exactly how pre-colonial conflics in North America played out, but I've found a few sources that suggest that inter-tribe warfare can be just as bloody as any other war (as far as the technology allowed, of course). "Skirmishes between tribes" is quite an understatement.
At what scale? I'd say it's definitely closer to colonialism than it is to Indigenous wars. No doubt some Indigenous groups were capable of immense cruelty to those around them, but a continent wide ethnic cleansing is something utterly incomprehensible to even the most expansionist Indigenous groups.
I've found a case of recorded genocidal conflict ("with intent to exerminate opposing tribe"), but it was obviously postcolonial (because there are basically no records of precolonial history). I'll note that both sides were supplied by respective colonial powers, so it could very well be considered a proxy war; however the conflict was waged by the tribes themselves, at their own will. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars
We can't forget that since the population density of America was much lower than in Europe, it's hard to compare conflicts apples-to-apples. Killing 10 individuals in a small tribe/village could exterminate nearly 10% their population; a number that would be considered devastating, quasi-genocidal if it happened between european powers.
As for your second point, it brings up a problem I have with your general argument. You argue that Indigenous conflics can be forgiven since the individuals had "no interest in waging a multi-generational genocide". I can confidently say that I, an North American with European decent, also have no interest in "waging a multi-generational genocide"; why must I be punished for it, then? Nobody gets to choose their ancestry.
(That being said, I acknowldege that systemic racism is still a very big problem today where I live, and I give my vote to whoever can reduce it the most)
The goal is not to punish anyone, nor is the goal to kick everyone out. The only goal of decolonization is to give back control of the land which was forcibly taken. Like Cowbee said, you give them the reigns, and then you let go. The logical extreme of this is that if they wanted everyone to leave, they could in theory, but that's only a logical extreme and it doesn't mean it will definitely happen. The majority of Indigenous groups make it pretty clear that's not what they want out of decolonization.
Indigenous peoples are not interested in punishing you. Most aren't even interested in having you go anywhere. They're reasonable people with empathy and compassion. The notion that you were born here not by choice is not lost on them.
I think this thread is focusing way too much on the notion that Indigenous people could force you out of their land and many people are under the assumption that they will definitely treat you worse than the current government treats you for not being Indigenous. But honestly, the way the current government treats even non-Indigenous people is absolute shit and getting worse by the day, so there's no reason not to think our lives would be better under Indigenous sovereignty.
I recommend the book The Red Deal: Indigenous Action to Save our Earth if you're interested in what decolonization looks like from the perspective of Indigenous people. They certainly don't solely think about benefiting themselves.