What exactly is wrong settlerism? What entitles one man to land and not the other?
>The body was too short or empty
>The body was too short or empty
>The body was too short or empty
Settlerism doesn't benefit the lower class. It just expands it.
Are you pretending to be retarded?
it's bad when (you) do it
>What exactly is wrong settlerism? What entitles one man to land and not the other?
Because "Settlerism" is the belief that someone else has the right to kick you out of your home because you personally are not a good person and not using your resources right.
>>2689932>it's the people who are already living on and using the land who have an entitlement problem, not the people who show up randomly and declare it belongs to themThe people already living on that land did that to the people living on that land before them eand etc etc…
So where is the arbitrary line drawn?
>>2689881The problem with settler colonialism was obviously the violence enacted upon the native population, not the act of migration in of itself.
>>2689939Well how else would you have taken their land from them? Natives of the land stole it from someone else too.
>>2689845>What entitles one man to land<"man"for a history of patriarchal slave owning society, see:
>>2689937>>2689932>the people who show up randomlyzero historical materialism thread, there was a long history of crisis in European capitalism
<Several European wars and conflicts prompted settlers to migrate to the Americas, seeking new opportunities and escaping turmoil. Here are the most significant:<War/ConflictTime PeriodImpact on Migration<The Hundred Years' War1337-1453Economic strain and social unrest in England led to increased emigration.<The Wars of Religion1562-1598Religious persecution, particularly in France, drove Huguenots to seek refuge in the New World.<The Thirty Years' War1618-1648Widespread devastation in Europe, especially in Germany, prompted many to flee to America for a fresh start.<The English Civil War1642-1651Political and religious conflicts led many English settlers to seek stability in the colonies.<The War of Spanish Succession1701-1714Economic hardship and military conscription in Europe encouraged migration to the Americas.<The Seven Years' War1756-1763Increased British presence in North America and the need for land led to more settlers moving westward.<Additional Factors<Economic Opportunities: Many settlers were motivated by the promise of land and wealth, particularly in the wake of wars that disrupted traditional livelihoods.<Religious Freedom: Conflicts often had a religious dimension, prompting groups like the Puritans and Quakers to seek a place where they could practice their faith freely.<Social Unrest: Wars often led to social upheaval, pushing people to leave their homelands in search of stability and a better life.the tumor cells spread throughout the world, and now everyone's body is full of microplastics because the liberal settlers just made The New World into The Old World 2.0, like a virus that just reproduces itself without existing sustainably, destroying their host (planet Earth)
<Tumor cell proliferation refers to the process by which cancer cells grow and divide to produce more cancer cells. This rapid increase in cell number is a key characteristic of cancer. It involves both cell growth and cell division, leading to an exponential rise in the number of cells.<Cell Cycle Phases: Tumor cells go through several phases in the cell cycle: G1 (growth), S (DNA synthesis), G2 (preparation for division), and M (mitosis).>>2689938>So where is the arbitrary line drawn?>>2689942>Natives of the land stole it from someone else tooHistorical materialism explains why the Aztec and Mayan empires died off, and why the people who survived their crises ("I'm ignoring woke radlib nonsense about ndigenous people teaching us out to adapt to climate change" THEN PERISH 💀💀💀) were those who could change their mode of production to adapt to their changed material conditions. They invented sustainable praxis to cooperate with nature in order to survive, that's the "primitive communism" which Marx and Engels celebrated
>>2689942Why is it necessary to take their land?
>>2689964Idk ask the natives who took it from other natives.
>>2689964Because it wasn't being used productively. For the same reason the bourgeoisie's ill gotten gains are expropriated and land is returned to the tiller, settler colonialism is inherently progressive because it develops the productive forces that are otherwise being left fallow or underutilized
>>2689965Other natives doing it 2000 years ago doesn't answer why it's necessary for YOU to do it NOW. The truth is, the strong do whatever they want, because they can.
>>2689845Leftists are against it because it benefitted white people.
>>2689845>why are you against mass death and sufferinggee I dunno dude
>>2690013>muh moralism Fuck off liberal trash
>>2689956>zero historical materialism thread, there was a long history of crisis in European capitalismThat doesn't have any bearing on Europeans' claim to the Americas as referenced in OP's pic of manifest destiny, which is an explicitly religious claim of God promising the land to white people.
>>2689942oh ok you are pretending to be retarded, nevermind
Settlerism is only bad when white people do it
>>2690027Mass death and suffering destroy or severely handicap productive forces.
That you could only conceive of these things as being moral issues implies
you are the liberal here.
>>2690099People with this mentality will tell you that indigenous people didn't have any productive forces and the colonizers were starting from zero. Even in cases like Cortes or Pizarro.
>>2689942>Natives of the land stole it from someone else too.wrong. many paleo-american genetic studies such as that done on kennewick man show close relatedness to modern indigenous groups in those areas.
Settlerism is bad when it is done in a racist, xenophobic manner, if it is done in a manner that dehumanizes the native population then it's obviously bad.
>>2690148It's also very funny that (definitely sight unseen) the people arguing this shit just assooom that whomever was colonized must have been just as bad, they simply must have. As if there isn't a huge variety of societies around the world that have dealt with colonialism targeting them.
>>2690148So theres arbitrary genetic distance that if two groups share it makes stealing the others land okay?
ຮາບາລີໂທອ
รอยตรเป็นเงินที่สาร ดับได้ตามกฎหมาย
ທ້າລັບບາທ
What is your opinion on mass migration?
>>2689942>Natives of the land stole it from someone else too.Like who?
Settlerism is good which is why I support mass migration to the West and the rape and slaughter against white women and children
The only settler-colonial states which are historically progressive are islamic ones. Allahuakbar
>>2690394Other groups of "natives"
What is your opinion on mass migration?
>>2690404Such as? Can you give a concrete historical example? And can you show that this was commonplace?
>>2690027>tee hee look how evil I am aren't I coolfuck off retard
>>2690413You're saying natives didnt war with eachother over land?
>>2690420What is your opinion on mass migration?
>>2690427Why not? What entitles one man to land and not the other?
>>2690404>>2690420But who specifically? handwaving some bullshit about how "uhhhh dah natives also fought each other durrrr" is not an answer. What natives, where were they, how was their land "stolen", etc? As far as I am aware, amerindians did not have race based exclusion of land ownership nor even really territory/landownership in the concrete sense as we understand it today. Provide an example or admit you're a retard and shut the fuck up
>>2690430>What natives, where were they, how was their land "stolen", etc? Its impossible because the natives didnt write down anything.
>amerindians did not have race based exclusion So its okay to take someones land as long as you're not doing it on basis of racial exclusion
> ownership nor even really territory/landownership in the concrete sense as we understand it today.Okay So then whats wrong with taking it from the natives?
>>2690429I dont know Thats what im trying to find out here
>>2690434>Its impossible because the natives didnt write down anything.We still know quite a bit about them, so it should be easy to provide even just 1 (one) example. Or are you saying that you have no concrete examples and are just saying shit on presumption?
>So its okay to take someones land as long as you're not doing it on basis of racial exclusionHow is it "stealing land" if there's no mechanism by which to enforce structural ownership on the basis of characteristics. How is living under this or that native ruler the same as living as a racial minority in a reservation? All you're saying is that natives also did war. Yeah, everyone knows that already retard. But there's no land theft as there is with settlerism
>Okay So then whats wrong with taking it from the natives?The ethnic cleansing and colonialism obviously
>>2690442Yeah im not a reacrionary retard like the people here who arbitrqrilt draw lines on where people are allowed to live and who land ownership belongs to based on skin color like the people opposed to settlerism are.
>>2690441>We still know quite a bit about them, so it should be easy to provide even just 1 (one) example.Its impossible given that they wrote nothing down so record of their conflicts dont exist.
>How is it "stealing land" if there's no mechanism by which to enforce structural ownership on the basis of characteristics. Yeah so then theres nothing wrong setllerism then.
>But there's no land theft as there is with settlerismTheres no land theft either given that the natives didnt even technically owne the land according to you either.
>The ethnic cleansing and colonialism So nothing other than moralism.
>>2690446>Its impossible given that they wrote nothing down so record of their conflicts dont exist.My god. You fucking people on this site….
>>2690446>Its impossible given that they wrote nothing down so record of their conflicts dont exist.Thanks for admitting honestly that you're retarded
>Theres no land theft either given that the natives didnt even technically owne the land according to you either.There is as they are defacto disposed of their land and their communal rights on it and are literally ethnically cleansed from it, not allowed to return to make room for an entirely other groups of people to occupy the territory. That is land theft
>So nothing other than moralism.You asked what's wrong with it. Do you not think ethnic cleansing and colonialism are wrong? Also could you answer how living under this or that native ruler is the same as living as a racial minority in a reservation? You seemed to have skipped that question for some reason
>>2690451>There is as they are defacto disposed of their land and their communal rightsThey dont have rights to either of those the only rights they do have as the losers are ones which the victors grants them.
>not allowed to return to make room for an entirelyentirely other groups of people to occupy the territory.
Why should they be allowed to return? Its not their land anymore they lost now they have to deal with the consequences.
Thats what happens to defeated tribes.
>Also could you answer how living under this or that native ruler is the same as living as a racial minority in a reservation? There isnt any difference
>>2690455Ok. I guess you wouldn't mind if I rape your mother and steal your house then
>>2690455>They dont have rights to either of those the only rights they do have as the losers are ones which the victors grants them.Semantics. Im talking about the their practical existence as people
>Why should they be allowed to return? Its not their land anymore they lost now they have to deal with the consequences.Thats what happens to defeated tribes.
No, defeated tribes either paid penalty or were integrated into larger polities. They were not ethnically cleansed and barred from returning on the basis of their race, as with settlerism.
>There isnt any differenceI asked you how isn't there any difference retard, you're just restating it's the same
>>2690466>Semantics. Im talking about the their practical existence as peopleAnd? The inly right they have are ones which they can enforce.
>No, defeated tribes either paid penalty or were integrated into larger polities. They were not ethnically cleansed and barred from returning on the basis of their race, as with settlerism. So?
>I asked you how isn't there any difference retardThere isnt a difference.
>>2690204P.S.
Lassale is a hebrew uyghur
Now i undestand why chagos poster wants to kill all yankes.
>>2690470They're just seething cause they keep getting btfo by the greatest country on earth
Settlerism is an inefficient, wasteful way of delaying class struggle and nothing more.
>>2690468>And? The inly right they have are ones which they can enforce.Ok? I don't care about your thought on rights lel. Im saying they had the ability to live and work communally in these territories, which they were barred from under settlerism, on the basis of their race.
>So?So Im right and you are retarded.
>There isnt a differenceBut practically it's totally different so what gives?
I gotta be honest dude, you actually seem like mentally challenged like for real
>>2690473>ok? I don't care about your thought on rights lelAnd i dont care about your thought on their ability to work the land
>>2690471Americattle is ruled by jews.
>>2690479Ok, but that's actually relevant to the thread and the question of whether natives "stole the land" of other natives, while your whining about what rights mean is just a non sequitur
Seriously man, did you get kicked in the head by a horse or something?
>>2690434>Its impossible because the natives didnt write down anything.So you pussy foot around giving a source because you don’t have a source. If we are going to argue on the basis of plausibility alone then I would argue that it’s highly unlikely that natives engaged in wars of extermination to acquire land like Europeans did, for various reasons. North America is a huge landmass that is abundant with resources, and prior and during colonization the global total human population was a fraction of what it was today, less than 10%. This means a relatively small number of Native Americans scarcely populated a gigantic continent that had enough resources that their hunter gatherer lifestyle could ask for. There was no capitalist incentive to perpetually acquire more land and resources since hunter gatherers merely take from the environment as much as they need to survive. The hunting practices and the way natives went about taking from nature was aimed at being modest and sustainable. If native tribes ever faced resource shortages they could simply go elsewhere, as there was enough to go around on the scarcely populated North America at that time. That’s not to say Native American tribes never had battles with other tribes, but was it a war of extermination to acquire as much land from others as possible like the European settlers did? No. It’s a bad equivocation based on willfully looking at history crudely.
Unique IPs: 30