• footfaults [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’d all have to be given back to them, since they were here first and it was all stolen from them and we forced them all into worthless land in the desert. Where would everyone in the US go? The reaction against that would be… something else. It would make all the low intensity warfare during Reconstruction look like a picnic.

    I think the US and states would need to give back state and nationally owned land, as well as purchase (or use eminent domain) land near where their original tribes lived, and give them the resources for decades, to develop themselves. This too may still cause a huge backlash.

    I think the least that should be done, is, where the reservations AREN’T on worthless desert land that we forced them onto, we should have to invest as much as is required to make the reservations WAY better, until a longer term restorative solution is found…

    Which, I doubt would be allowed.

    • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      landback isn’t about kicking white people out, in most interpretations. it’s about collective tribal ownership of land, which, around socialist principles would promote preservation at the expense of private industry. it’s not a proposal to have indigenous people come in and just take over the capitalist machinery at the expense of whites, it’ll in theory be better for everyone and probably in practice much like the minority SRs of the USSR—russian settlers remained and had political rights, the formerly colonized just got a bit more.