Trump tells minority Congresswomen to "go back where they came from"

[The Romulan Republic]

If you had actually read the thread, you would understand that neither of those outcomes is being advocated for. Perhaps, if you are unwilling to educate yourself, you should be silent.

As previously stated, I believe that there is a potential disconnect between your stated goals, and the likely practical outcome of attempting to implement them. However, I am certainly willing to further explore the subject.

I will not explore it further with you until you go and read the thread. I have no patience for those who launch attacks on me and wish to simplify without actually reading.

I mean, there's no actual way to verify whether I've read the entire thread or not. You can simply assert I am lazy and ignorant as long as I disagree with you.

And yeah, I don't feel that further discussion with you is likely to be very productive.

[loomer]

As previously stated, I believe that there is a potential disconnect between your stated goals, and the likely practical outcome of attempting to implement them. However, I am certainly willing to further explore the subject.

I will not explore it further with you until you go and read the thread. I have no patience for those who launch attacks on me and wish to simplify without actually reading.

I mean, there's no actual way to verify whether I've read the entire thread or not. You can simply assert I am lazy and ignorant as long as I disagree with you.

And yeah, I don't feel that further discussion with you is likely to be very productive.

You have stated that you aren't willing to do that reading. I find it particularly hilarious that after your spectacular display of bad faith earlier, you would now suggest I would dispute whether you've read it if you came back after doing it and didn't keep raising issues that have already been addressed and refuted. Perhaps the reason you project your paranoiac fantasies and accusations on others is because you keep operating in bad faith and making arguments from utter ignorance yourself and assume everyone else will too.

[The Romulan Republic]

I will not explore it further with you until you go and read the thread. I have no patience for those who launch attacks on me and wish to simplify without actually reading.

I mean, there's no actual way to verify whether I've read the entire thread or not. You can simply assert I am lazy and ignorant as long as I disagree with you.

And yeah, I don't feel that further discussion with you is likely to be very productive.

You have stated that you aren't willing to do that reading. I find it particularly hilarious that after your spectacular display of bad faith earlier, you would now suggest I would dispute whether you've read it if you came back after doing it and didn't keep raising issues that have already been addressed and refuted. Perhaps the reason you project your paranoiac fantasies and accusations on others is because you keep operating in bad faith and making arguments from utter ignorance yourself and assume everyone else will too.

"and didn't keep raising issues that have already been addressed and refuted." In other words, if I don't agree with your conclusions, you will continue to insist that I haven't read the thread.

I could also, for example, take issue with your use of the term "paranoiac fantasies" as making a false allegation of mental illness against me. But let's just leave it here, m'kay? I've stated my views, you've stated yours', I doubt either of us is going to agree with the other any time soon, and the conversation is just circling the drain at this point.

[loomer]

I mean, there's no actual way to verify whether I've read the entire thread or not. You can simply assert I am lazy and ignorant as long as I disagree with you.

And yeah, I don't feel that further discussion with you is likely to be very productive.

You have stated that you aren't willing to do that reading. I find it particularly hilarious that after your spectacular display of bad faith earlier, you would now suggest I would dispute whether you've read it if you came back after doing it and didn't keep raising issues that have already been addressed and refuted. Perhaps the reason you project your paranoiac fantasies and accusations on others is because you keep operating in bad faith and making arguments from utter ignorance yourself and assume everyone else will too.

"and didn't keep raising issues that have already been addressed and refuted." In other words, if I don't agree with your conclusions, you will continue to insist that I haven't read the thread.

No, TRR, you could even revisit them - provided you actually showed any kind of acknowledgement they'd been litigated already. You could even bring new arguments or, perhaps, try and refute the premises that lead to the conclusions. It takes a special kind of stupidity to read 'read the thread and we can talk' as 'you must agree or I'll say you haven't read anything'. For someone who screeches about libel and twisting words, you sure do like to invent positions with no relationship to reality.

I could also, for example, take issue with your use of the term "paranoiac fantasies" as making a false allegation of mental illness against me. But let's just leave it here, m'kay? I've stated my views, you've stated yours', I doubt either of us is going to agree with the other any time soon, and the conversation is just circling the drain at this point.

Go ahead. Take issue. You accused me of participating in a 'systematic campaign' against you - that sounds like paranoia to me.

[The Romulan Republic]

Okay, can we get the mods to weigh in on whether playing armchair psychiatrist and labeling a poster as having a mental illness is an acceptable debating tactic?

Edit: Reported loomer for playing armchair psychiatrist and falsely diagnosing me with a mental illness in an effort to stigmatize and smear me.

[loomer]

Okay, can we get the mods to weigh in on whether playing armchair psychiatrist and labeling a poster as having a mental illness is an acceptable debating tactic?

What is it with you and screaming for the mods at every opportunity? We aren't debating at this point, and if we were, you might not want the mods attention with your flagrant bad faith, improper accusations of fallacies, and demands that people defend positions they haven't taken, all while arguing from a position of near total ignorance.

Now, as it is I'm giving you my impression of what you come off as when you barge in to yell about 'systematic campaigns' against you: Paranoid. If you really want to get the mods in, by all means, go ahead and hit the button and send them a PM, but last time I checked PR5 still applied so I'd expect them to just tell you to knock off your histrionic screeching about people orchestrating smear campaigns for accurately calling you an anti-decolonization poster.

Edit: Reported loomer for playing armchair psychiatrist and falsely diagnosing me with a mental illness in an effort to stigmatize and smear me.

Good. At least you aren't a total gutless wonder.

[The Romulan Republic]

Okay, can we get the mods to weigh in on whether playing armchair psychiatrist and labeling a poster as having a mental illness is an acceptable debating tactic?

What is it with you and screaming for the mods at every opportunity? We aren't debating at this point, and if we were, you might not want the mods attention with your flagrant bad faith, improper accusations of fallacies, and demands that people defend positions they haven't taken, all while arguing from a position of near total ignorance.

Now, as it is I'm giving you my impression of what you come off as when you barge in to yell about 'systematic campaigns' against you: Paranoid. If you really want to get the mods in, by all means, go ahead and hit the report button, but last time I checked PR5 still applied so I'd expect them to just tell you to knock off your histrionic screeching about people orchestrating smear campaigns for accurately calling you an anti-decolonization poster.

Sorry, I know bullies like quiet victims, not loud and inconvenient ones.

Also, I never attributed to you any position you did not take. I simply pointed out that if you are arguing against colonialism, you might want to take the indigenous peoples' wishes into account before decreeing what you think is best for them. Or is that a racist position too?

And yeah, I think some of the arguments used here are fallacious, and that my views have been repeatedly misrepresented.

I'm aware that I haven't been at my best in this thread, and I suppose I should apologize for that, but there's a fucking reason for it. I'm sick of this shit, and at this point I just don't have the patience for it any more. If the mods think my conduct is ban-worthy then they can do as they see fit: this board, at least when it comes to political debate, is pretty much a cesspit of Kremlinist propaganda, dishonest debating, harassment, and open advocacy for domestic terrorism as it is at this point, and the mods don't do jack shit about any of that, so if my conduct is the line, that will really say it all.

[loomer]

Okay, can we get the mods to weigh in on whether playing armchair psychiatrist and labeling a poster as having a mental illness is an acceptable debating tactic?

What is it with you and screaming for the mods at every opportunity? We aren't debating at this point, and if we were, you might not want the mods attention with your flagrant bad faith, improper accusations of fallacies, and demands that people defend positions they haven't taken, all while arguing from a position of near total ignorance.

Now, as it is I'm giving you my impression of what you come off as when you barge in to yell about 'systematic campaigns' against you: Paranoid. If you really want to get the mods in, by all means, go ahead and hit the report button, but last time I checked PR5 still applied so I'd expect them to just tell you to knock off your histrionic screeching about people orchestrating smear campaigns for accurately calling you an anti-decolonization poster.

Sorry, I know bullies like quiet victims, not loud and inconvenient ones.

Also, I never attributed to you any position you did not take. I simply pointed out that if you are arguing against colonialism, you might want to take the indigenous peoples' wishes into account before decreeing what you think is best for them. Or is that a racist position too?

You demanded I provide proof of a claim I never made, dude. And if you think me describing you as paranoid is bullying, you must have a very lax definition of bullying - especially since you're the one who came in flinging insults like 'vermin' and 'coward'. What's good for the goose, as they say.

And yeah, I think some of the arguments used here are fallacious, and that my views have been repeatedly misrepresented.

Oh yeah? Then prove it. That's the way it works. Demonstrate the fallacies if they're disputed.

I'm aware that I haven't been at my best in this thread, and I suppose I should apologize for that, but there's a fucking reason for it. I'm sick of this shit, and at this point I just don't have the patience for it any more. If the mods think my conduct is ban-worthy then they can do as they see fit: this board, at least when it comes to political debate, is pretty much a cesspit of Kremlinist propaganda, dishonest debating, harassment, and open advocacy for domestic terrorism as it is at this point, and the mods don't do jack shit about any of that, so if my conduct is the line, that will really say it all.

If You Want To Leave, Just Leave. If you keep threatening or promising to leave, we'll eventually get tired of the melodrama and just ban you. If you ask us to ban you or dare us to ban you, we will. If you demand that we erase all your posts, we will laugh at you.

[Straha]

You demanded I provide proof of a claim I never made, dude. And if you think me describing you as paranoid is bullying, you must have a very lax definition of bullying - especially since you're the one who came in flinging insults like 'vermin' and 'coward'. What's good for the goose, as they say.

There's something interesting about the way that the word racism has evolved in popular culture and usage to be read more as an insult than a descriptor. Such that to make the accusation in a personal or even professional sense is almost always scurrilous and suspect.

This isn't new, in 1968 when George Wallace ran for President on a platform of explicit segregation, only 40% of the population thought he was a racist. Even recently news outlets and schools will chide people and students for calling things racist, even if they are, because the language is 'inflammatory'. I feel like, because racism has been painted as blanket 'bad' to label someone a racist is read first as an act of othering, a way to isolate someone from the norm to punish them, much like meaningless insults.

I wonder if this hasn't transposed itself to how people respond to other political terms. For instance, in this thread when you label TRR someone who is anti-decolonization, something that he objectively is, his response is to call it a lie not because he feels that is an inaccurate descriptor (indeed, he later admits to not fully knowing what the term means) but because it is read as an insult and thus must be a lie coming forth from a verminous coward.

I also wonder, and here I get more tentative, if this isn't part of the process that White Fragility describes. How White Folk in the West sit in a privileged position wherein it is simply assumed that any 'in group' must include them, and that to be excluded is an almost personally destabilizing move. Take that how you will.

[Dalton]

I'm aware that I haven't been at my best in this thread, and I suppose I should apologize for that, but there's a fucking reason for it. I'm sick of this shit, and at this point I just don't have the patience for it any more. If the mods think my conduct is ban-worthy then they can do as they see fit: this board, at least when it comes to political debate, is pretty much a cesspit of Kremlinist propaganda, dishonest debating, harassment, and open advocacy for domestic terrorism as it is at this point, and the mods don't do jack shit about any of that, so if my conduct is the line, that will really say it all.

The mods have day jobs. They can't just trundle behind you cleaning up your shit. Quite frankly, every fucking time I come in here it's because you or Jub is starting shit. I'm on my last fuck here.

[Rogue 9]

I now have time.

The fact that he has failed spectacularly in most of his attempts is also a feature, much more so than his attempts in the first place. Further, that misses the point; his goals and specific policies are not structural to the United States. You're talking about the office of the Presidency while conflating it with its current occupant. I'm talking about its current occupant.

Trump is absolutely structural to the US. His vision of race, economics, America's role in the world, etc. all fit perfectly into the pre-Cold War narrative that the United States told about itself. All of this, and the 'person v. office' discussion was laid out at some length earlier in the thread. If you want to revive that discussion pick it up from there, I'm not going to reinvent the wheel here.

You completely glossed over that his repeated failure is an intended feature of the system, but sure, whatever. If you mean immediately pre-Cold War, though, that's laughable (his economic policies are not even remotely close to those of Franklin Roosevelt, just to touch on one part of how hilariously mistaken you are). That said, pre-Cold War was over seventy years ago at this point. The nation has changed since then, mostly for the better. I get that you seem ideologically unable to acknowledge this, but even a cursory overview of the state of civil rights in 1946 vis a vis 2016 shows marked differences. It's also telling that you felt you needed to reach back seven decades before you felt comfortable making the comparison.

Except Treaties have been unilaterally moved out of the question of international law and into the world of domestic matters by congress in the Indian Appropriations Act. The Supreme Court has ruled that it can abrograte Treaty obligations unilaterally and that "'the exclusive right of the United States to extinguish' Indian title has never been doubted. And whether it be done by treaty, by the sword, by purchase, by the exercise of complete dominion adverse to the right of occupancy, or otherwise, its justness is not open to inquiry in the courts." In other words, Congress can do whatever the fuck it wants to Native Tribes and they can do jack squat about it, and precedent (and the court's reading of the constitution) means that the Court cannot interfere.

'Best Mechanism' my ass.

Beats the hell out of a fat load of nothing. New York would most definitely be collecting taxes from the Seneca if no one was stopping them from doing so, to pull an example out of this thread. And what Congress can do, Congress can undo. The United States is a republic, and as such it can be altered within the framework of the state; indeed, doing so was the intention from the beginning, and it has been done to date twenty-seven times.

Your backpedal here is shocking.

You: "The constitution gives real and concrete mechanisms to enforce treaty obligations from the United States towards Native Tribes, it would be foolish to give up this structural power."
Me: "The courts have said that congress has total plenary power over Native Tribes and can do whatever they want, including abrograting treaty rights, without the courts being able to interfere."
You: "Well, still, there's something here and maybe Congress can do something in the future!"

No. Congress' power over Native Tribes come from Congress being designed as the government of a White Settler Ethno-state. Those powers should be abolished.

Treaties made are still constitutionally the supreme law of the land. A lawsuit to enforce them should be a slam dunk. Further, the idea that the United States, one of the most multi-ethnic and multi-cultural countries in the world, is a white ethnostate just boggles the mind. The nation is shaped by immigration from all corners of the globe. Trump and his following doesn't like that, but it remains true (another strike against the idea that he's structural to the country).

So, to be clear, your argument for the reason to defend the United States is that its populace are bloodthirsty murderers who want to kill Natives? And you argue that the courts and constitution, which give complete control over Native lands to an elected congress in a way that can't be reviewed by the courts, are the best protections that Native Tribes have in the United States?

Can you detect my skepticism?

No, to be clear, my argument for defending the United States in this particular instance is that a seceding state is not going to have the interests of the natives in mind. Arizona is not going to break itself off from the United States just to give the questionable benefits of doing so to the Navajo and Hopi. I seriously doubt anyone in this day and age is going to try to do that with the specific goal of attacking the native nations, but that doesn't mean they'll advance native interests either.

The idea that it's the U.S. vs. Arizona is a strawman, to say the least. Again, though, your argument is still one that says the 'Federal Government as a whole is more caring towards native tribes than a more direct representation of the will of U.S. Citizens.' Which isn't a good one to make in your position.

No. My argument is one that says the native tribes do not have the power to break up the United States, and any entity with that power and the inclination to use it is not likely to do their bidding. That isn't the same as saying that they would be attacked or necessarily even dealt a worse hand, but seeking safety in the breakdown of government is a fool's errand for anybody.

I said it upthread and I'll say it again; the best chance to render justice to the native nations, insofar as that's still possible, lies in changing the culture of the United States and impressing its inhabitants with the need to do so. And having done that, dissolving the United States is patently unnecessary; all you'd need is a couple of election cycles. Conversely, if you dissolve the United States having not done that, its successors are unlikely to be much better on that score.

And as has been said multiple times in this thread: you can't engage in reforms of a culture whose legitimacy is built off of the taking of the land. Nor can the governments which can only exist because of this injustice ever be viewed as legitimate.

It's also interesting that you think elections can fix this problem. How's that going for, say, anti-Black racism?

So if you think elections can't fix the problem, how the fuck is your proposed solution (insofar as you have one) supposed to be democratic? Loomer seems to think that it will be, but you sure aren't helping his position.

I will say, that I actually don't think the abolishment of the United States is truly necessary. I do think there could be ways to achieve the radical restructuring I want and advocate for inside the systems of government that already exist. What I find is that those ideas don't go over so hot when proposed to people, and that the abolishment of the U.S. is usually read as the more moderate position.

I've floated the idea of giving every federally recognized Tribe a Senator in the past, but people usually freak out about that and Effie is touching on this ground already, so I'll talk about another proposal: Voting reparations.

One of the thorny issues when it comes to voter suppression is how do you make amends under the common law to people whose vote have been suppressed. Other nations, under descent of the Civil Code, have ways of invalidating and redoing elections for things like this, but under the common law for a variety of reasons this becomes more difficult. Damages under common law are usually translated into money or property rights, and things outside of that scope are notoriously difficult for courts to figure out. So, how do you assess damages for someone who wasn't just denied to vote but was denied the right to have a say in the political nature of the state? The lack of their voice in one election is going to make sure that their representatives don't represent them, and that will change the nature of government for years to come.

A law school professor talked about a thought experiment where everyone whose vote was suppressed should get an extra vote in the next election. In this way there's an easy remedy, and there's a built-in deterrent for would-be vote suppressors. The sort of genius of it is that, in theory, it ensures that representatives will cater to previously suppressed voters and that catering will make up for the damage done previously. I like this idea in principle.

Sounds subject to equal protection lawsuits, but it's an interesting idea. You'd need to define suppressed, though. Also, if a population's voting is suppressed, and it remains so, how many votes that population gets at the ballot box isn't material if they continue to be kept from the ballot box. The remedy lies in the courts and in Congress, and the way to do that is to not just defeat but marginalize the Republican Party as it's currently constituted. Demographic change means that's coming; the only question is how soon.

On a related note. Black folk have lived in the United States since the beginning. Over that time they have been enslaved, marginalized, targeted for violence, and never truly received political representation that is their due. So, the proposal I make from time to time: Give every descendant of a slave in the United States twenty votes in every election for the next twenty years. I think the math, more or less, works out. There's been roughly two hundred years (give or take) of voter suppression, which means giving every descendant of a slave twenty votes for twenty years gives them basically a 'lost' vote and a extra vote as a remedy. Twenty years makes sure the changes that occur will be structural, but that the reparations are, in fact, temporary.

Now, obviously, this means that the 10% slice of the population that's descended from enslaved black folk will have controlling influences on most states elections and will absolutely dominate national politics.

When I propose to White Folks, they freak out. They say that this will make it so that politics only represents Black folk and that would be bad, and they usually say it with a straight face which makes me think they don't grasp the irony. They offer all sorts of bluster about how this will hurt other minority groups (again, they say this unironically, which is shocking to me), and try to come up with visions of disaster and despair. Then they try and negotiate the representation down. It usually comes down to something like three extra votes for six years, and usually with all sorts of added restrictions on voting. All of which fundamentally misses the point of the thought exercise.

Well, on the one hand, it's an interesting idea that isn't entirely without merit. On the other, you shouldn't be surprised at counter-offers. For instance, how you reacted to Vendetta when he made one was telling; the fact he had a different but similar idea (spread out over a longer timespan) seemed to make you think he was proving your point, but someone intent on keeping the black man down would just tell you to fuck off and not even entertain the idea. His rationale was faulty (gerrymandering is powerful, but it's not so powerful as to trivially overcome a 20:1 vote to population ratio on the part of the minority), but you didn't even touch on that; you just started exhibiting his posts to me as evidence of your point.

You know my field of study; it's essentially impossible to study antebellum politics and not be aware of the horrors and atrocities of both slavery and Indian policy. Reparations are owed, in money, education, and opportunity. I wouldn't dream of denying that, and will consider and support any reasonable plan.

I've also had the luck to propose it to some black colleagues of mine who do inner city radical political organizing on the East Coast. They hate the idea too, but their argument is much more simple. "The second this looks like it will take place, the cops will kill us and politicians will protect them."

Which I think is sort of a summary that I find truly compelling. The system is set up so that the system itself cannot change (indeed, never really has). As such, we have to end the system.

That... is an extremely, not to say outrageously, pessimistic assessment. I won't question the basis of the fear; inner city black folk obviously have every reason to distrust the police, but the idea that the police would embark on a full scale pogrom, to say nothing of politicians letting them get away with it, seems far-fetched. They seriously believe that if they get a real shot at political power the cops would respond by going door to door shooting people en masse for being black, and then that nothing would be done about it? That didn't happen when Obama was running and looked set to win; if there was a time to do that, it would have been then. Urban populations regularly elect representatives of color and they don't get purged for doing it.

As for the system never changing, I refer you to the Reconstruction Amendments. The system is set up to change, and indeed it has. It can change again, for good or ill.

It's late and I don't have time for a complete response at the moment, but to touch on this, from my position that's bonkers. I'm more than willing to discuss reparations and assent to any reasonable plan. I'm drawing the line in two places. First, at legitimating the longstanding charge leveled by autocrats the world over, and yes, most recently by Vladimir Putin: That people are not fit to govern themselves, and that republics must fail, which the implosion of the United States would do. Second, at responding to blood with blood, or to human rights violations with human rights violations.

I find your first point interesting because it seems to foreclose governments changing themselves. The French are on their Fifth Republic, is that a reason to believe Republics always fail? If not, why can't the United States change its government too? If we are to hyper-fixate on the idea of recognizing Republics and not their failures, are we to tell the UK that to ditch Bess and return to the Cromwellian Commonwealth? Or is the US to throw out the constitution and restore the Articles of Confederation? If not, why can't the people of the United States decide that this current government is bad and replace it with another?

To the second, what cost are you willing to pay in reparations?

The French are on their Fifth Republic because their republics have failed and been overtaken by autocrats and military revolts, repeatedly. Meanwhile, the Constitution of the United States has had twenty-seven amendments with no closure to amending it further or even calling a Constitutional Convention to completely replace it (though doing so now would be disastrous given the current makeup of the state governments). Using those mechanisms does not constitute the downfall of the United States. France is no refuge for your argument, and the constitutional history and mechanisms of the United States directly contradicts your characterization.

To the second, enough to elevate the oppressed to equality of opportunity. As I alluded to earlier in my response, reparations are due in non-monetary ways as well. As for what that may take, fiat justitia ruat caelum. I'm not starting with the destruction of the country as the goal, though.

We already live in an Ethnostate. The question is how to fix it.

And, btw Rogue 9, this is what I mean. When you talk about seriously trying to engage in reforms using the tools of the system people freak the fuck out. Dismantling it is absolutely more moderate than this.

We do not live in an ethnostate. The vote is not legally restricted on the basis of race, and neither is membership in the representative bodies. Perhaps people freak the fuck out because you are alleging things that are transparently untrue and then telling them they need to sacrifice to amend the untruth.

Want to know why? Here's why.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

People find limited ways around it. But that doesn't make this an ethnostate. It means corrupt politicians are adept at finding ways to leverage electoral advantage, and that is something we can fix.

More or less. Obviously, debate happens at the margins over new terms and how existing terms may apply (for instance, there's a very active debate about whether or not Asian folk in the United States are settlers), but that's to be expected in any field and nothing in a thread like this is going to approach those issues in the depth to make those nuances matter.

As you like to say, hoo boy, lot to unpack here.

This is a direct admission that, in fact, the entire underlying ideology behind this massive threadjack is fundamentally racist. Explaining why is easy and shouldn't even have to be done, but since you evidently don't get it, here goes. There is active debate out whether or not Asian folk, as a homogeneous group, are settlers. Arguing that they are is obviously a racist position; it seeks to impart to a whole swath of people (of a whole swath of different ethnicities, to boot) a derogatory status because of the color of their skin and land of their ancestry. Reacting to that with anything other than an eyeroll or perhaps a strong telling-off is also a racist position because it's taking the idea seriously - meaning that the person so doing is perfectly willing to do that to whole groups of people because of the color of their skin and lands of their ancestry and the sticking point is whether to do it to this particular racial group. Everything about this is about ethnicity and race; you are fundamentally arguing that ethnicity creates ties to land and confers right to rule on that land and rule whoever else happens to be on that land. I don't see that as an improvement; rather I see it as an ideology that would vindicate the Nazis' claim to a German homeland. I know you don't see it that way and I'm not accusing you of being a Nazi, but come the fuck on, the construction is nearly identical, with the difference lying in the proposed courses of action.

Starting tomorrow morning, I will be away from my computer for a week. Expect no full response before August 10th.

[Effie]

"Settler" is not a derogatory status. Your proposition falls apart at the first hurdle.

[Rogue 9]

"Settler" is not a derogatory status. Your proposition falls apart at the first hurdle.

You seem to be using it that way, but fine. It's still assigning a status based on race, which is racist. The stereotype that Asians are as a bloc intelligent and good with math is not derogatory but is nonetheless racist and harmful, for another instance. The rest of the statement stands.

[Nicholas]

"Settler" is not a derogatory status. Your proposition falls apart at the first hurdle.

That depends on just how serious Loomer and Straha are when they say they want to restore sovereignty to the Native Peoples and how exactly they are defining Native Peoples. The obvious meaning of that is that they intend to strip Settlers (those descended people who immigrated (excluding slaves) since Europeans "discovered" the New World) of the right to self government and give Native Peoples (those descended from the people living in North America & and Austria when the Europeans "discovered" them) authority to govern them. If so "Settler" is intended to designate people who will be subjects of the state instead of citizens and thus is a derogatory status.

When challenged that such an action would create unjust and oppressive ethno-states governed by a tiny minority (the US population is I believe around 75% Settlers) they say that isn't what they mean and insist they favor democratic governments but then they invariably go back to calling for restoring sovereignty to the Native Peoples without defining how Settlers could become Natives or explaining what restoring sovereignty to Native Peoples means if the vast majority of voters are going to be non-native.

I see a contradiction here but choose to take them at their word regarding both claims and so don't know how to evaluate their statements. I don't care enough to read a couple of books on decolonization theory in order to try and understand them.

Nicholas

[Effie]

"Settler" is not a derogatory status. Your proposition falls apart at the first hurdle.

You seem to be using it that way, but fine. It's still assigning a status based on race, which is racist. The stereotype that Asians are as a bloc intelligent and good with math is not derogatory but is nonetheless racist and harmful, for another instance. The rest of the statement stands.

What the fuck does "assigning a status based on race is racist" mean? Are you saying that calling someone white is racist?

"Settler" is not a derogatory status. Your proposition falls apart at the first hurdle.

That depends on just how serious Loomer and Straha are when they say they want to restore sovereignty to the Native Peoples and how exactly they are defining Native Peoples. The obvious meaning of that is that they intend to strip Settlers (those descended people who immigrated (excluding slaves) since Europeans "discovered" the New World) of the right to self government and give Native Peoples (those descended from the people living in North America & and Austria when the Europeans "discovered" them) authority to govern them. If so "Settler" is intended to designate people who will be subjects of the state instead of citizens and thus is a derogatory status.

When challenged that such an action would create unjust and oppressive ethno-states governed by a tiny minority (the US population is I believe around 75% Settlers) they say that isn't what they mean and insist they favor democratic governments but then they invariably go back to calling for restoring sovereignty to the Native Peoples without defining how Settlers could become Natives or explaining what restoring sovereignty to Native Peoples means if the vast majority of voters are going to be non-native.

I see a contradiction here but choose to take them at their word regarding both claims and so don't know how to evaluate their statements. I don't care enough to read a couple of books on decolonization theory in order to try and understand them.

Nicholas

If you don't care, why post, except to be malicious? Why brag about your pride in your own ignorance and your ability to mildly inconvenience people?

[Rogue 9]

"Settler" is not a derogatory status. Your proposition falls apart at the first hurdle.

You seem to be using it that way, but fine. It's still assigning a status based on race, which is racist. The stereotype that Asians are as a bloc intelligent and good with math is not derogatory but is nonetheless racist and harmful, for another instance. The rest of the statement stands.

What the fuck does "assigning a status based on race is racist" mean? Are you saying that calling someone white is racist?

Don't be dense. No. I'm saying that "white people are X," or "Asian people are X," or "Jews are X," is. The insistence that no one has any right to live in the Americas if their ancestors did not dwell in them prior to 1492 is.

If you don't care, why post, except to be malicious? Why brag about your pride in your own ignorance and your ability to mildly inconvenience people?

Not to speak for Nicholas, but he didn't say he didn't care at all. He said he didn't care enough to go slog through a bunch of academic writing in order to understand the code you're apparently speaking in. Making your positions clear is on you; "don't come back until you read these entire books" is not an acceptable rejoinder and it's been employed several times.

[Straha]

Not to speak for Nicholas, but he didn't say he didn't care at all. He said he didn't care enough to go slog through a bunch of academic writing in order to understand the code you're apparently speaking in. Making your positions clear is on you; "don't come back until you read these entire books" is not an acceptable rejoinder and it's been employed several times.

To quote one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th Century:

"Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak?

"You can' t solve a problem? Well, get down and investigate the present facts and its past history! When you have investigated the problem thoroughly, you will know how to solve it. Conclusions invariably come after investigation, and not before. Only a blockhead cudgels his brains on his own, or together with a group, to "find solution" or "evolve an idea" without making any investigation. It must be stressed that this cannot possibly lead to any effective solution or any good idea. In other words, he is bound to arrive at a wrong solution and a wrong idea."

[Effie]

You seem to be using it that way, but fine. It's still assigning a status based on race, which is racist. The stereotype that Asians are as a bloc intelligent and good with math is not derogatory but is nonetheless racist and harmful, for another instance. The rest of the statement stands.

What the fuck does "assigning a status based on race is racist" mean? Are you saying that calling someone white is racist?

Don't be dense. No. I'm saying that "white people are X," or "Asian people are X," or "Jews are X," is. The insistence that no one has any right to live in the Americas if their ancestors did not dwell in them prior to 1492 is.

That's not the definition of settler, sooo...

If you don't care, why post, except to be malicious? Why brag about your pride in your own ignorance and your ability to mildly inconvenience people?

Not to speak for Nicholas, but he didn't say he didn't care at all. He said he didn't care enough to go slog through a bunch of academic writing in order to understand the code you're apparently speaking in. Making your positions clear is on you; "don't come back until you read these entire books" is not an acceptable rejoinder and it's been employed several times.

It's no more a code than the use of the words "Hamiltonian" or "formalism" or "wavefunction" are a code when discussing physics. Referring to discourse from the humanities and the social sciences as a "code" is fundamentally a coward's way of calling them illegitimate, a way to avoid saying "I've banned sociology from this conversation" while still effectively saying it.

And there is no point in clarifying for someone who doesn't have any desire to learn. It's purely wasted effort and demanding it is frankly somewhat degrading to me or anyone else.

[Zwinmar]

Post Civil War Reconstruction I think there are a few who needs to watch this.

[Rogue 9]

Not to speak for Nicholas, but he didn't say he didn't care at all. He said he didn't care enough to go slog through a bunch of academic writing in order to understand the code you're apparently speaking in. Making your positions clear is on you; "don't come back until you read these entire books" is not an acceptable rejoinder and it's been employed several times.

To quote one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th Century:

"Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak?

"You can' t solve a problem? Well, get down and investigate the present facts and its past history! When you have investigated the problem thoroughly, you will know how to solve it. Conclusions invariably come after investigation, and not before. Only a blockhead cudgels his brains on his own, or together with a group, to "find solution" or "evolve an idea" without making any investigation. It must be stressed that this cannot possibly lead to any effective solution or any good idea. In other words, he is bound to arrive at a wrong solution and a wrong idea."

Mao? And that particular passage? Really? Let's go a bit further down the page.

"Whatever is written in a book is right — such is still the mentality of culturally backward Chinese peasants. Strangely enough, within the Communist Party there are also people who always say in a discussion, "Show me where it's written in the book." When we say that a directive of a higher organ of leadership is correct, that is not just because it comes from "a higher organ of leadership" but because its contents conform with both the objective and subjective circumstances of the struggle and meet its requirements. It is quite wrong to take a formalistic attitude and blindly carry out directives without discussing and examining them in the light of actual conditions simply because they come from a higher organ. It is the mischief done by this formalism which explains why the line and tactics of the Party do not take deeper root among the masses. To carry out a directive of a higher organ blindly, and seemingly without any disagreement, is not really to carry it out but is the most artful way of opposing or sabotaging it.

"The method of studying the social sciences exclusively from the book is likewise extremely dangerous and may even lead one onto the road of counter-revolution. Clear proof of this is provided by the fact that whole batches of Chinese Communists who confined themselves to books in their study of the social sciences have turned into counter-revolutionaries. When we say Marxism is correct, it is certainly not because Marx was a "prophet" but because his theory has been proved correct in our practice and in our struggle. We need Marxism in our struggle. In our acceptance of his theory no such formalisation of mystical notion as that of "prophecy" ever enters our minds. Many who have read Marxist books have become renegades from the revolution, whereas illiterate workers often grasp Marxism very well."

What the fuck does "assigning a status based on race is racist" mean? Are you saying that calling someone white is racist?

Don't be dense. No. I'm saying that "white people are X," or "Asian people are X," or "Jews are X," is. The insistence that no one has any right to live in the Americas if their ancestors did not dwell in them prior to 1492 is.

That's not the definition of settler, sooo...

ORLY?

[Effie]

Not to speak for Nicholas, but he didn't say he didn't care at all. He said he didn't care enough to go slog through a bunch of academic writing in order to understand the code you're apparently speaking in. Making your positions clear is on you; "don't come back until you read these entire books" is not an acceptable rejoinder and it's been employed several times.

To quote one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th Century:

"Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak?

"You can' t solve a problem? Well, get down and investigate the present facts and its past history! When you have investigated the problem thoroughly, you will know how to solve it. Conclusions invariably come after investigation, and not before. Only a blockhead cudgels his brains on his own, or together with a group, to "find solution" or "evolve an idea" without making any investigation. It must be stressed that this cannot possibly lead to any effective solution or any good idea. In other words, he is bound to arrive at a wrong solution and a wrong idea."

Mao? And that particular passage? Really? Let's go a bit further down the page.

"Whatever is written in a book is right — such is still the mentality of culturally backward Chinese peasants. Strangely enough, within the Communist Party there are also people who always say in a discussion, "Show me where it's written in the book." When we say that a directive of a higher organ of leadership is correct, that is not just because it comes from "a higher organ of leadership" but because its contents conform with both the objective and subjective circumstances of the struggle and meet its requirements. It is quite wrong to take a formalistic attitude and blindly carry out directives without discussing and examining them in the light of actual conditions simply because they come from a higher organ. It is the mischief done by this formalism which explains why the line and tactics of the Party do not take deeper root among the masses. To carry out a directive of a higher organ blindly, and seemingly without any disagreement, is not really to carry it out but is the most artful way of opposing or sabotaging it.

"The method of studying the social sciences exclusively from the book is likewise extremely dangerous and may even lead one onto the road of counter-revolution. Clear proof of this is provided by the fact that whole batches of Chinese Communists who confined themselves to books in their study of the social sciences have turned into counter-revolutionaries. When we say Marxism is correct, it is certainly not because Marx was a "prophet" but because his theory has been proved correct in our practice and in our struggle. We need Marxism in our struggle. In our acceptance of his theory no such formalisation of mystical notion as that of "prophecy" ever enters our minds. Many who have read Marxist books have become renegades from the revolution, whereas illiterate workers often grasp Marxism very well."

Don't be dense. No. I'm saying that "white people are X," or "Asian people are X," or "Jews are X," is. The insistence that no one has any right to live in the Americas if their ancestors did not dwell in them prior to 1492 is.

That's not the definition of settler, sooo...

ORLY?

Did you know that there are more people than white and Native people in the United States? Did you know that nothing in the linked post says anything about having pre-Columbian ancestors in order to have a right to live here? Try again, and engage your brain this time.

[Rogue 9]

Did you know that there are more people than white and Native people in the United States? Did you know that nothing in the linked post says anything about having pre-Columbian ancestors in order to have a right to live here? Try again, and engage your brain this time.

Did you know that listing out all the exceptions is tedious and disrupts the point? "The insistence that no one has any right to live in the Americas if their ancestors did not dwell in them prior to 1492, or their ancestors were brought there as slaves, or if their ancestors were sentenced there as punishment, or maybe if their ancestors came from Asia, etc etc etc is," serves much the same purpose, but doesn't roll off the keyboard as well and should be well understood by now. After all, we've all read the thread. Quit it with the gish gallop; you're not impressing anyone or making me forget that you aren't engaging with the substance of what I said.

[Straha]

You completely glossed over that his repeated failure is an intended feature of the system, but sure, whatever. If you mean immediately pre-Cold War, though, that's laughable (his economic policies are not even remotely close to those of Franklin Roosevelt, just to touch on one part of how hilariously mistaken you are). That said, pre-Cold War was over seventy years ago at this point. The nation has changed since then, mostly for the better. I get that you seem ideologically unable to acknowledge this, but even a cursory overview of the state of civil rights in 1946 vis a vis 2016 shows marked differences. It's also telling that you felt you needed to reach back seven decades before you felt comfortable making the comparison.

Again, this is dealt with in the first few pages, and I even lay out at one point how blatant racism formed the through line of 20th Century presidential politics. This also doesn't approach the structural question of the stolen land, or the empiric failure of integration, the collapse of black wealth, etc. etc. There are sources linked in the thread, I encourage you to read them.

Treaties made are still constitutionally the supreme law of the land. A lawsuit to enforce them should be a slam dunk. Further, the idea that the United States, one of the most multi-ethnic and multi-cultural countries in the world, is a white ethnostate just boggles the mind. The nation is shaped by immigration from all corners of the globe. Trump and his following doesn't like that, but it remains true (another strike against the idea that he's structural to the country).

Look. Man. I know that you're going in on the 'Requiring someone to read books shouldn't be a requirement to enter into a discussion' thing. But whatever our disagreements there I'd at the very least hope you'd read the links that you're responding to. Because I literally cite the two cases, with links, that:

1. Say that Treaties made with Native Nations are considered domestic affairs underneath the purview of Congress and can be abrogated at any time by congress unilaterally without regard to the treaty's obligations or text.

and

2. Say that those cases are considered beyond the purview of the court and that congress takes land, or other assets, from natives under its power that is the end of the story.

Put simply, those lawsuits have happened. They are slam dunks, but they go the other way.

I will add, as a gut-check, that if the treaties were enforced then in a practical sense the United States will be rolled back. If your argument is, and let me be clear that this is a pretty decent argument and one I respect, that the United States should be forced to keep its word that also means that the United States is going to blow up a good portion of its dams and waterworks, dismantle gas pipelines and fracking installations, and give back sovereignty over the land in places like California, the Dakotas, Georgia, amongst a whole lot of other things.

There is a reason why in the 60s and 70s one of the rallying cries of the American Indian Movement was to "Enforce the Treaties". Because to do so would force the decolonization and rolling back of the United States. Like straight up, I think these broken treaties are a reason why the U.S. is illegitimate, but the groups that believe that this is a political strategy are, in many ways, fundamentally more radical than what anyone has staked out here. And if that's your stance, cool beans. (Also, considering a lot of those treaties have clauses about forcibly removing 'Bad Whites' and that those clauses are often something that radicals want to enforce, you have now staked out a position that actually does entail violent removal and relocation of white folk. Which again, neat!)

This is also, btw, why I think the constitution and legal apparatus of the United States needs to be dismantled. Common law is built on precedent, what we decide in the past becomes true for the future. U.S. Common law is fundamentally racist and has all sorts of racist precedents built in (see, the cited cases, also M'Intosh v. Johnson, etc.). This precedent also determines how the constitution and its obligations are read and interpreted, and remain so to this day. To undo these things would require such a seismic shift in the nature of how the constitution is understood as to render the state afterwards effectively unintelligible to the present one.

The kind of shift you're defending would be one that throws constitutional interpretation, property law, and the basics of jurisprudence into a period of chaos. That's cool, if that your game I'm down. I simply think that it's easier to start a fresh.

As for the US being an ethnostate. The question is: Why were the Native Nations rolled back, why is it still the precedent of the United States that Natives hold land in-trust until white folk show up, and why is it that the courts and congress can control the laws of Native Tribes? If you don't get how this makes the United States an Ethnostate, I don't know what to tell you.

No. My argument is one that says the native tribes do not have the power to break up the United States, and any entity with that power and the inclination to use it is not likely to do their bidding. That isn't the same as saying that they would be attacked or necessarily even dealt a worse hand, but seeking safety in the breakdown of government is a fool's errand for anybody.

Nobody is saying that the Native Tribes should do this by themselves. This should be a large scale effort that is democratic and negotiated.

So if you think elections can't fix the problem, how the fuck is your proposed solution (insofar as you have one) supposed to be democratic? Loomer seems to think that it will be, but you sure aren't helping his position.

I'm not saying that the replacement won't be democratic. I'm saying that the current government and its electoral system cannot be an end in and of themselves and that electing different sets of people to run an occupying power does not change the fact that the government is fundamentally an occupying power. What is needed, as I said elsewhere, is a mosaic of strategies.


I'll deal with the rest of your post in a bit. This is a good breaking point between the larger theoretical discussion to come and the practical discussions here.

[loomer]

More or less. Obviously, debate happens at the margins over new terms and how existing terms may apply (for instance, there's a very active debate about whether or not Asian folk in the United States are settlers), but that's to be expected in any field and nothing in a thread like this is going to approach those issues in the depth to make those nuances matter.

As you like to say, hoo boy, lot to unpack here.

This is a direct admission that, in fact, the entire underlying ideology behind this massive threadjack is fundamentally racist. Explaining why is easy and shouldn't even have to be done, but since you evidently don't get it, here goes. There is active debate out whether or not Asian folk, as a homogeneous group, are settlers. Arguing that they are is obviously a racist position; it seeks to impart to a whole swath of people (of a whole swath of different ethnicities, to boot) a derogatory status because of the color of their skin and land of their ancestry. Reacting to that with anything other than an eyeroll or perhaps a strong telling-off is also a racist position because it's taking the idea seriously - meaning that the person so doing is perfectly willing to do that to whole groups of people because of the color of their skin and lands of their ancestry and the sticking point is whether to do it to this particular racial group. Everything about this is about ethnicity and race; you are fundamentally arguing that ethnicity creates ties to land and confers right to rule on that land and rule whoever else happens to be on that land. I don't see that as an improvement; rather I see it as an ideology that would vindicate the Nazis' claim to a German homeland. I know you don't see it that way and I'm not accusing you of being a Nazi, but come the fuck on, the construction is nearly identical, with the difference lying in the proposed courses of action.

Starting tomorrow morning, I will be away from my computer for a week. Expect no full response before August 10th.

Now, you make two fairly fundamental errors here that need to be explored.

First, you assume that the idea of the Settler is racist. This is incorrect.
Second, you assume that the argument that Indigenous peoples have a particular tie to the land is based on their ethnic status rather than the correlated but distinct cultural status that creates that particular tie, and as a subset, that this means that arguing for Indigenous sovereignty confers an unfettered 'right to rule' all inhabitants of that land. This is, likewise, incorrect.

Let's unpack the first:
'Arguing that [Asians in America, Canada, Australia, Etc] are Settlers is obviously a racist position; it seeks to impart... a derogatory status because of the colour of their skin and land of their ancestry.'

What is argued is that Asians who immigrate into settler-colonial states and their descendants participate in the ongoing dispossession of Indigenous peoples from their lands, are not usually part of the slave arm of the Settler-Native-Slave triad, and that accordingly, they are Settlers. This is not a 'derogatory status' but a sociopolitical one - it's akin to saying 'oh, well, Penny Wong is part of the legal community'. The Settler exists as a class defined by their desire to possess land taken from the Indigenous population, their ongoing involvement in the systems of colonial oppression that attach to this desire, and the corresponding socio-economic privileges of settler status. Asian immigrants and their descendants meet all these criteria not through any quirk of their race or country of birth, but by their actions and their ongoing involvement in the systems of colonial oppression. Thus, not only is it not derogatory, but it has nothing at all to do with their race. They might just as easily fall into the Slave limb of the triad, and indeed, often did until relatively recently - the move towards civil rights, as it happens, was primarily the allocation of Settler privilege and status to those previously occupying the Slave limb of the triad. You also referenced some perceived view that this discussion views Asians as 'homogenous' and ignores that '[they are] of different ethnicities' - this is also incorrect, as it makes no claim regarding Asian populations of similarity in any other regard than that they occupy Settler spaces, nor would any decolonization theorist I'm familiar with argue to the contrary.

Indeed, to argue they are somehow not settlers because of their race or country of origin is a significantly more racist position than the contrary. It presupposes that only Whites may be settlers, while the proposition that immigrants to settler-colonial societies obtain Settler status reaffirms that Settler status is in fact not racial but socio-political, economic, and cultural. No part of the Settler status and label presupposes an innate quality linked to race as you seem to believe. Rather, it proposes a convenient analytical category based on the acquisition of rights and land that can only be acquired through the extinguishment of Indigenous counterpart rights and land ownership, and it cannot in fact function meaningfully if it is reduced to a racial delineation as you seek to propose. See for instance la paperson, A Third University is Possible, which debunks the idea that Settler-Native-Slave are reducible to race or propose identities.

Your second limb needs to be considered in two parts itself. First, 'you are fundamentally arguing that ethnicity creates ties to land'.

It is indeed argued that ethnicity can create a tie to land through the attached culture and nationalities. I don't believe it's especially controversial to express that people become attached to the places they live and where their ancestors lived. It is in fact one of the key bases of ethnic and national development in most cases - where we live informs who we are, and over time, this develops into distinct cultures. What is debatable is whether this is bad, as you assert, or neutral or potentially positive, as most anti-racists and decolonization theorists would suggest.

Now, let us consider it this way. A nation of people live in a country for a thousand years, and develop an attachment to that land. This nation exists just like any other nation, with sovereignty and the right to make laws for the peace and good governance of its inhabitants. This nation is then invaded and its inhabitants ethnically cleansed and forcibly displaced, but refuse to surrender their claim to the land they are attached to. Which part of this do you believe to be flawed? Are they mistaken in thinking they have a connection to the lands of their birth, from which they did not willingly depart? Are they mistaken in thinking anyone can have a connection to the lands of their birth and their history?

Second, '[these ties] confers [a] right to rule on that land and rule whoever else happens to be on that land'.

What is proposed is not that ethnic status gives some special right to rule, which requires a special misreading of the arguments made. Instead, what is proposed is that Indigenous sovereignty - the nations - ought to be restored because they - the nations - were improperly dismantled by force, ethnic cleansing, and violence. For instance, I live in Bundjalung country (I better watch out Broomstick doesn't start screaming about it again) as an Australian citizen, but I recognize that the sovereignty of the Bundjalung peoples was never ceded, was never destroyed, and continues. Thus, I propose that the Bundjalung nation ought to have the right to govern the land and its peoples, no different to the existent Australian state. This argument can be summed up thus: A sovereign nation has sovereign rights; the sovereignty of Indigenous nations should be restored; therefore the Indigenous nations should possess sovereign rights. One of these rights - arguably one of the most central ones - is the right to make laws regarding and for those resident within the nation, in essence, to 'rule' that land.

Let us use a hypothetical example: A nation of people live in a country for a thousand years, and exist as a sovereign nation. Others move into their lands, and refuse to acknowledge this sovereign state's validity, engaging in genocide and war against that sovereign nation's people. Does the sovereign nation not have a right to govern and maintain its territories and to rule over those within its territory, and is this group of violent others not criminal and in breach of that Sovereignty?

[loomer]

"Settler" is not a derogatory status. Your proposition falls apart at the first hurdle.

That depends on just how serious Loomer and Straha are when they say they want to restore sovereignty to the Native Peoples and how exactly they are defining Native Peoples. The obvious meaning of that is that they intend to strip Settlers (those descended people who immigrated (excluding slaves) since Europeans "discovered" the New World) of the right to self government and give Native Peoples (those descended from the people living in North America & and Austria when the Europeans "discovered" them) authority to govern them. If so "Settler" is intended to designate people who will be subjects of the state instead of citizens and thus is a derogatory status.

Settler is not a derogatory status but a socio-political, cultural, and economic designation. Nowhere will you see me advocate for stripping Settlers of the right to self government or giving Indigenous peoples (especially not those of Austria - sorry, couldn't resist) some kind of unfettered governing authority. What I propose is instead that the Settler ought to work towards the deconstruction and dissolution of the settler-colonial model both for the sake of their neighbour and for themselves, and that what emerges ought to be a democratic state in which the Settler - who ceases to be a Settler, but I will use the label here for convenience - has a voice and a vote. Unless you believe democracy does not convey a right to self-government, this does not advocate for stripping self government from anyone at all.

When challenged that such an action would create unjust and oppressive ethno-states governed by a tiny minority (the US population is I believe around 75% Settlers) they say that isn't what they mean and insist they favor democratic governments but then they invariably go back to calling for restoring sovereignty to the Native Peoples without defining how Settlers could become Natives or explaining what restoring sovereignty to Native Peoples means if the vast majority of voters are going to be non-native.

I have repeatedly explained this issue, so either you find those explanations unsatisfactory - in which case, please do engage with them directly - or haven't read them. The cliffnotes version is that we mean different things than you seem to be reading by restoring sovereignty. All this truly means is recognizing the sovereignty of the original nations - no different to say, Switzerland's sovereign status - and recognizing that Settlers land claims are predicated on an illegitimate theft that ought, where possible without undue human suffering, be made good on. At present the nation is mixed up with its traditional inhabitants to a high degree because it cannot be identified meaningfully with its territory, and many of its citizens live in exile in other regions and nations. Once this is resolved, a meaningful difference will naturally emerge between the Indigenous state and the Indigenous population of that state.

The second component is indigenization, which does not actually mean for the former Settlers to 'become Natives' (indeed, the idea of the Native in opposition to the Settler is part of what decolonization seeks to dismantle!) but rather for the culture to undergo a willing, voluntary shift away from identity as Settlers and into identifying on a national level with the states we actually inhabit, while retaining our own cultural and ethnic identities where they are not innately harmful. See, for instance, my proposed 'end state' for myself - a whitefella (my ethnic identity - distinct, I note, from Whiteness in this context) Bundjalung citizen, by which is meant 'a whitefella who possesses citizenship in the Bundjalung state', who speaks the local language as well as English (just as I would if I moved to Germany and became a whitefella German), who knows about and participates in elements of the local culture (both whitefella and blackfella, and increasingly as time goes on, a melding of both). This does not suppose I will become an ethnic Bundjalung man - simply that, living in a sovereign nation, I will be a citizen in that nation and participate in its culture and language.