The American media loves saying that, but does it really have a right to exist? Does an apartheid colonizing regime have the right to exist in someone else’s land?
The American media loves saying that, but does it really have a right to exist? Does an apartheid colonizing regime have the right to exist in someone else’s land?
people rented slaves, and for the purposes of this discussion, that should be at least partial credit for “owning”
Sure, but how in the world would you ever prove that? I doubt less then 1 percent of the receipts from those transactions survived.
land ownership would be easier to find records for and is probably a decent proxy.
if the other person’s “reeducate anyone who checked the caucasian box” idea is too extreme, maybe a compromise could be reeducation for anyone defending the use of confederate symbols.
Yeah that last bits fine. But land ownership seems a bit extreme, again, just owning land doesn’t signify anything.
owning land in a settler-colonial slave society sure fucking signifies something. holy shit dude
No it fucking doesn’t? A random ass ancestor owning land isn’t something you can pin on a random person in the modern day.
What does that signify? Plus like I mentioned before, the vast majority are dirt poor subsistence farmers playing with second rate dirt while mega plantations owned by the bourgeoisie hog hundreds of square miles of prime land that’s operated by literal slaves. Those subsistence farmers aren’t really the vanguard of the settler colonial force.
But imagine someone came up to you today and said, “Well it seems like one of your ancestors 250 years ago simply existed in a settler colonial area, even though they were dirt fucking poor, and we don’t have any evidence or documentation. Prepare for reeducation!” I’m sure you’d love that?