and founded on genocide of indigenous people and enslavement of Black people, but then explicitly or implicitly claim that said Black and Native people are exploiters of the third world, in order to imply that revolution is impossible in the US *even among black and native people*. In addition, why do the people opposing the claims of revolution being impossible in the US bring up the conditions of all working-class people in the US in general, instead of specifically that of Black and Native people. Idk, it seems like there used to be a coherent position on the left that revolution among *white* people specifically in the US was impossible, but that revolution among colonized people in the US was possible and necessary, but now it’s been subsumed into both of the positions I’m talking about. Also, it seems like a lot of people take the government propaganda that every single Native American died and there are none left today at face value in order to argue that *all* people in the US are unrevolutionary settlers, what’s up with that? Sorry, I know I’m being really reductive, this has just been bothering me for a really long time and I want some answers.
4 posts and 1 image reply omitted.>>727055The Native Americans were mostly wiped out by European diseases. That is, literally 95% of them. There really weren't all that many left to genocide. The largest Federal mass execution of natives was like 22 people. The Wounded Knee Massacre, which is one of the more heinous examples of genocidal killing of the native tribes, killed 90 people. Perhaps the greatest act of genocide committed against the Native Americans was the Trail of Tears, which killed between 2000 and 6500 people. Of course, these are all tragic events, but they don't even fit within the statistical margin of error of the shit the Nazis did.
>>727053ok if people actually think that they are dumb but respond to these points:
< the American revolution was fought because yank booj resented paying taxes, and wanted faster westward expansion, which the brits were restricting the yanks from because the brits had treaties with the indians that the yank colonists did not want to respect. Also, the brits objectively legally abolished slavery in their colonies 30 years before the burger civil war, so people rightly point out that burger slavery would have ended earlier if they had stayed a british colony… also the british did in fact arm slaves against the yank colonists, such as the ethiopian regiment, promising them freedom. >>727105The Nazis also didn't shoot millions of people, they just took their food, blew up the infrastructure and watched them starve, die of disease or freeze to death. Guess why theres almost no bison left in the North American Plain.
>>726941Self-hating honkies who think they can become Honorary uyghas.
>>726970>But this always manifests as some kind of wingnut nonsense. They have become an atheist, leftist version of the Westboro Baptist Church where the United States is too sinful for God's grace.Moonbats. The word you're looking for is moonbats.
Is this the dumb shit Americans think about? Lmfao