If some of the Discord audio is hard for you to follow, turn on subtitles, I worked pretty hard to make sure they capture anything the mics didn't quite pick up.
That's just it. They know that private property is violent and think land back means the violence will be redirected towards them. That's what they're so scared of.
@@TheyWillKnowAnotherconsidering it is probably land violently expropriated from indigenous nation(s) that originally inhabited that land and has continued to be prevented from returning to their ancestral lands, yes, it is violent.
I think further than that there is a disconnect on the difference between private and personal property: normal people don't own private property, businesses and governments do.
Last year I told grandma that she has been groomed under patriarchy to do all the cooking and cleaning because she is a woman and society doesn’t value her so why not go with land back this year.
Sorry but i think only people who know for a fact that the lands they're living on are a legacy of brutal colonialism by their ancestors, will ever think that landback is revenge. The fear of violent retribution is only present, because you know your people had done violence upon others, and assume the victims would act violently like you. It's very telling. And petty, dumb and disgusting.
If this is a gotcha, it feels like a strange one. I am fully aware of the brutality and horrors of colonialism. I think they should be stopped, and the work of decolonizing my own view of the world is work I'm trying to do. That said, I'm not convinced that anyone is immune to things like greed, pride, or fear. There's nothing about being the victim of colonialism or genocide, that makes it impossible for people to violently retribute, given the opportunity. I also would like to not die, or be deported to Europe. None of this means I oppose landback, or that I actually think violent retribution is something I need to worry about. I just don't think having that question makes me (or another person who might be worried about it) a bad person.
I think one of the most important points of this movement is, remember, this is at its core a _progressive_ movement. We're not hearkening back to a mythical better past. We do not, in fact, want to return all land to its historical owners in search of some hypothetical better original state. We can incorporate better praxis going into the future. Land Back is simple. _Give the gods be damned land back._ Not to the natives, _or_ to the settlers. To the _people who live there now._ If you live there now, keep it. Use it for yourself. If you don't? Go do your business at home, or come here and live with us. Either one is fine actually, as long as you're respectful about it. What this is about, at its core, is _reintegrating_ the value of our land into our communities, and to stop letting people who have no stake take it from us. They lose nothing when they devalue it, and _that's_ why it's bad. They'll never care if they don't personally pay the cost, and the people who pay the cost are the ones who live there. If we want to stop people exploiting the land and form a more constructive relationship with nature, we should be centering the people who deal with that land on a day to day basis, not whoever has the money to own the rights.
@@joshuasanderson7359 It _was_ giving me mildly Nationalistic vibes, so I felt like I'd air my thoughts. No disrespect to the guests of course, I just feel like it's a mistake in messaging to resort to Magical Native "We're just inherently better at this, so let us do it" nonsense. It is, factually, the case that First Nations peoples _did_ take better care of the land, but it's definitely not the case that settlers _can't_ do better so we should leave it to the experts. The underlying reason they do better is mostly just another Capitalism Bad. America and Canada absolutely _could_ adopt the generational wisdom that made them so good at it as practice regardless of the involvement of First Nations cultures, they just fundamentally haven't cared enough yet. The argument for why Land Back would work as a pragmatic solution to environmental extraction is simply less "We can do better, because we're good at this" and more "We _would_ do better, because we care more." Mostly the problem is private property being bad in general anyway. This is just another anticapitalist lens with specific local context for a specific local problem. Important, obviously, praxis for change is almost always best considered locally and on specific problems. But also just a facet of the overall critique when talking about theory or ideology, and echoed at all levels because it's addressing the same fundamental problem.
@@connerblank5069it doesn’t sound nationalistic because native people never worshipped a nation.. you are just reactionary about the wording because you don’t feel included in it.. perhaps you are identifying with the colonizers instead of identifying with the native people. Everyone having collective control over the land is only better then what we currently have if people decolonize their minds. Put in the work deconstructing your current moral compass and thinking about things on a deeper level. Why do you think the native people would be nationalistic when they have no history of viewing Mother Earth that way.
@@bitchywoman I didn't say they were being nationalistic, just that it had those vibes. The rhetoric was very similar to something a reactionary nationalist might say about their own project. That doesn't necessarily mean they have that kind of intent, of course, hence me calling it a failure in messaging rather than a problem with their motivations. Also important to note that I don't think the _project_ has nationalist vibes, just the way these people in particular were talking about it.
No. This was total gibberish. It is about returning stolen land to the people who had been living there from the very people that stole it. If you are on land your grandfather stole you would not be staying there unless no one was around to reclaim it.
Love seeing Chris from Silver Spook show up in things, everybody should be checking out Neofeud for real if you want a game that really understands cyberpunk.
I made one (1) editing mistake. The first person to spot it wins one (1) free vegan sausage from any participating K-Mart Express Deli in the lower quad-county area (expires 1/1/20something)
Looked like you repeated the part where Silver Spook says that people don't have to adopt Blackfoot or any specific Nation's economic and social system but that we should be seeking to learn from them.?
It seems like there are non-native people/settlers in more rural areas who have formed meaningful relationships with the land they live on. Their position reminds me of the video about “people who are half right”; they want their environment to be healthy and continue providing life-giving resources, and they would say they don’t want corporate interests controlling and harming the land they live on. The problem is that vast majority have fully accepted capitalist land ownership and management as the only option, are attached to the colonial status quo, and are afraid of supposedly giving up the power they have, or at least think they have, to another group. It’s so difficult to break down those mental barriers. Though I honestly worry even more about getting suburbanites to actually understand and be on board with land back; they’re so cut off from the land. I hear how some of them talk about their water guzzling bright green lawns in dry areas and the whole effort feels doomed.
Righto Sharing this around while I cook that USAmerican Thanksgiving dinner. Thank you once again for your work, and in this case, hosting and amplifying voices!
We can see two different perspectives right next to each other: 38:38 Chris: Land back will benefit everyone. 37:00 Tuck, Yang: Land back may or may not benefit everyone, and that's not important. What's important is doing the right thing.
Tuck and Yang seem like crypto-ethno-nationalists. If you don't care about forming coalitions and solidarity when diverse groups of people, than your decolonial project is going to ultimately fail.
I'm full anarcho-anti-colonialism here, kick us all back across the ocean for me, but the thing I struggle with is the idea of landback being so broad. At times in the video, it's not about giving the land back to Indigenous populations, at others it's very concretely about that. At times the talk is about how the native peoples care better for the land, at others it's about how native people would make better government administrators (eg. Hawaiian health care). I'm fully aware that the level of concreteness I'm suggesting isn't necessarily in line with non-colonial values, but we're talking about trying to make action happen and that needs clarity and shared objectives
when it comes to land back i feel like we should clarify who we're discussing in any given conversation (eg: maybe i'm talking about lack of education on a particular first nation, maybe it's an issue that affects a particular geographic region encompassing multiple ethnic groups/nations, etc) so it's easier to understand who's knowledge we're trying to incorporate and what the material needs are. if you're on stolen land, learn about the local indigenous peoples. learn a bit about their recent history, current issues, and what they're trying to do. if you have the money to, financially support our cultural programs, businesses, artists (check out snotty nose rez kids!). if you're not indigenous, i'll say ahead of time that sometimes we can be a bit insensitive to well-meaning white allies (compared to brown allies who prolly experienced colonization in their homeland) and that's a reaction from community trauma. as long as you're genuine about wanting to support our liberation, your support will be appreciated. if you're into academic stuff here's some recs (as curated by my ojibway communist self) : Tuck, Eve & Wayne Yang, (2012). Decolonization is Not a Metaphor. Herlich Garber, Elijah, (2023). When the theoretical confronted the practical : Zapatista territorial autonomy as opposition to the cooperation of state and capitalism. Coulthard, Glen, (2014). Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition. Betasamosake Simpson, Leanne, (2017). As We Have Always Done: Indigenous Freedom Through Radical Resistance.
I dont think a more concrete overview is necessary for such a broad topic - colonization affects every tribe in different ways so land back in each case will communicate what that the local tribe is dealing with. Thus action relevant to you would be what your local tribes have for objectives. Indian law is notoriously complicated, thus 'land-back' is its antithesis; an undoing of the red-tape of American government and bureaucracy that entwines every tribes' right to self-govern and manage their space.
New Dang Daddy drop! *adds to the playlist* Thanks for sharing this and helping open my eyes to the meaning behind the idea of land back, which I was already down with at face value. 😊
you can't own land just like you can't own your mother is so incredibly evocative. i got to follow more indigenous creators also should not have started this video so close to bedtime, hope the comment makes up for the lack of view time....
Baby Shel Darren Sipity haphduzn knox leftifield Manny Phesto sake red Tall Paul Iron Boy bonus is Joe Rainey who isn't Hip-Hop but puts a modern spin on Indigenous Folk music.
So I’m understanding that Land Back is very much a kin to Anarchism. It’s peace without power. It’s life without the need of government. It’s simply doing what is right.
Me, a German, rocking to the intro song. Me realising what the lyrics are meant to mean 😀. Btw: banger remix, we’re all in this together and less dissimilar than we might think. And when fascism comes for us, it will, at one point, kill indiscriminately.
The spiritual dimension was the last and final piece that cemented landback to me as a critical overarching goal as a white activist. I don’t want to be a settler living severed from the land, apathetic and unmoored, I want to live somewhere that I have a relationship with the land, and without landback that is institutionally impossible. It won’t be possible to be spiritually whole and have that relationship with the land I live on until indigenous people regain sovereignty and control of the land and land management. So in addition to the ethical, philosophical, and practical reasons, I find myself greatly motivated to promote landback causes because until indigenous people are respected and have their sovereignty returned people like me will never have the chance to learn how to live with the land and not just exploit it.
Something about this feels disturbingly conservative. I don't own a house, and even if they did kick me out of it I wouldn't be bothered. If its my turn to be a refugee then its my turn to be a refugee and I'm not going to rage against that or freak out. The thing that bothers me is this idea that the indigenous people inherently are better at handling land, and that there was a superior time in the past when a society of (presumably) all pure blooded indigenous people was able to do everything right and it was all great and the way to fix things is to return to that time.
They alluded to it here and there in the interview and maybe I clipped out a part that would've explained this better, but I think they are talking about how we can provably see that capitalist land management has wrecked the land. More forest fires, dried or dirty rivers, animal depopulation... whereas places that use indigenous land management practices tend not to see that same level of destruction. So I think the argument is that in the great laboratory of life, we can see that indigenous land management is restorative and holistic and capitalist land management depletes and degrades.
@@ThatDangDad Thank you for your kind response. They did definitely bring that up, and I agree that capitalism has provably failed the land. Perhaps it's because I've been exposed to a lot of work by hunters and botanists and white people who deeply love the land, but I feel there are more methods for taking care of the land than just indigenous and capitalist. That being said the capitalist "method" if it can even be called that will consume all other methods and the land itself unless forcibly kept out, and I support that removal and Land Back wholeheartedly. My concern is a minor technicality, and the concept is still good and worthy of support. It just feels like parts of the Land Back idea as expressed by them overlaps in the ideas ven diagram with a lot of conservative concepts too.
@@people2chronically-online People go homeless for nothing all the time, I don't think I have some special immunity. I pray you don't get in a car accident and become a paraplegic.
Um.. it's not the settlers that will be waiting for a long time for a written out plan. Settlers will simply not comply and it will be LandBack that will be waiting.... what happened to meeting people where they are? Is it really too much to get certain things sin writting? Settlers of all people understand that handshake agreements are breakable, even treaties are breakable, only things back with money and guns have rigidity. To speak with your oppressor you generally must speak In Their langauge or be such a thorn in their systems they they back off. It's certainly not moral necessarily to have to appease oppressors, but also most of these "oppressors" by this point are just cogs in the system and just need a good argument to become a wrench.
@@ThatDangDad of course that's a fair point. Realistically maybe 20+ hours of content on the issues. The question is more for the masses. Early adopters will dive in and radicalize themselves on a topic. There will also be people that hold views that will stunt their intest at all. But the masses in the middle need more than a sound bite but less than a PhD dissertation. Like most things I look for the sweet spot, enough information to feel confident, enough of a goal to know how to launch a phase 1, and enough of an action plan to know the actions will be impactful. An example of what I would love to see is a collection of all the plans and definitions out there by each school of thought on it. (On a tangent, a better online network for all meaningful action groups would be great )
Thanks for making this video. It's a very important topic that is very thoroughly misunderstood, and even more people are completely ignorant about the reality of colonization in this country and the world. No doubt this introduction will be effective for many people.
… I’m pro land back. But the two first people interviewed here… they said nature should be given to natives because natives work it better. I’m sorry about saying this, but that’s literally the reason colonialists argued for stealing the lands of people. That “those fools with their backwards culture don’t know how to properly manage this place”. That’s a messy reasoning for giving back land to people. A simpler reason is that people got scammed and stolen from, people have a right for what’s theirs and to not be conned by others into losing everything they have, ergo return the stolen land. Environmental issues are also very important to me, but I won’t try to demolish a city because I deem its people unwise. I’ll damn well try to manage various ways to make people not abuse the world around them, but i understand that issue as seperate from the historically unjust abuses of communities and peoples. A person deserves their place to live whether they have wise ecological customs or not, and a person who messes the ecological balance does not immediately lose right to their access to a space. If colonialists have learned how to properly care for the land that does not give them the right to take whatever land from whoever native they see. The ravaging of territories for the sake of personal profit at the cost of native communities is an evil demanding a repair which should be opposed and if possible entirely undone, but land back brings connotations of returning unjust conquering. Not the care for nature. Arguing against it because nativity makes one wiser and better than any non native is abit race essentialist, which i don’t see why we should agree with.
I think my read of what they are saying is that colonizer land practices have been proven to be destructive and unsustainable and thus a return to sustainable indigenous land management is the way to fix what we can see is broken. I think this is in contrast to the colonial mindset of "those savages aren't making any profit with all those resources!" terra nullius reasoning. Natives want the land back to be free for all to enjoy as opposed to land back as property they fence off and work. So I didn't take this as a "natives are in their essence better than whites" kind of thing but rather as "you will know a tree by the fruits it produces" kind of reasoning.
[The following is silly snark, because I don't have anything legitimately bad to say, and yet you lead me to expect[0] a desire to push back, so... I thought I'd live up to the expectation in a silly way, just for fun. So:] 41:58 - hey, your viewers are not a monolith! 😉 How do you know if I'll vibe on the game? ;) Though, I admit I do vibe with Silver Spook's politics, so there's that. :) #LandBack! [0] referring to a Xitter post that includes "i have gotten more pushback on this video in the first 4 hours than i've gotten in months". I didn't actually expect to be among the ones who'd push back, particularly, but, it's an excuse for my joke.
I have to laugh at how eerily accurate the algorithms are at analzying my brain algorithms. I'm literally mindlessly scrolling and pondering the fact that I'm finally at a point where racism and bigotry doesn't HURT my bpd brain that had an insanely intense meltdown mid pandemic as the genocide revelation settled in. after that i felt like a child for years. all bigorty set me off and i couldn't control how long it would hurt for. now I'm finally at the place where I can be directly biggoted at and it doesn't bother me so much anymore. like how messed up is our world where "normal" is being able to deal with racists. and then a landback dangdad vid pops up at the perfect time, what a chuckle i just chuckled
Great topic, but as a Historian and Coast Salish Anthropologist, i can tell you, that many native groups have different ways of viewing land. Here in Washington state, they had defined land ownership, resource access ownership, and one technology allowed, time and time again, natives would act just as destructively as many settlers... chasing 400 bison off a cliff for 20 animals to process... the Salish Sea people, netting entire rivers of salmon, dumping 100s of thousands of wasted fish into the sea or into their soil. Cherokee... holding over 40,000 slaves... humans act very similar across the world, under our capitalist system especially. Im just saying beware of nostalgia of a time of indigenous paradise... when many times. Wars, cast systems and slavery were extremely common.
"natives would act just as destructively as many settlers" did they though? which natives? like which specific peoples? from what i know, our (i'm afro-indigenous) usage of animal products are much more sustainable as we use as much of the animal as possible as well as give offerings back (we're thankful for what the animal can provide for us), in an ecology class i learnt that a certain species of tree in coast salish territories (i'm on musqueam land at ubc) benefitted from having the nutrients in the fish but now fish aren't making their way up streams anymore due to settler fishing practices, and cherokees owning slaves cannot, in good faith, be compared to the transatlantic slave trade, they operated on different systems & interests. today, indigenous people (globally) are land protectors first and foremost, our knowledge is currently being utilized by western scientists to deal with climate change. lastly, in conversations relating to land back, we're not preaching a return to the exact lifestyles we had pre-contact so while we can learn from them, we should focus on improving the material conditions of current/future generations of indigenous peoples. edit: since you clarified ur background i feel like i should mention i'm a ubc student, i study indigenous teacher education with a focus on high school / post-secondary history & social studies. i'm also ojibway & work in an indigenous library so we likely spend a lot of time researching the same topics
Ahh.. a historian and anthropologist. That explains your sweeping conclusion. If you’re a historian and anthropologist I would like to know the following: what methodological approaches to research you have applied. Your theoretical or conceptual frameworks. The data sets you worked with. Control for bias. The scope and limitations of your research, with special considerations for how anthropology contributed to colonization and the construction of history. With all of this at hand, why the sweeping conclusion since this is antithetical to most modern anthropologists who work with Indigenous people.
I appreciate the reply! I think, in the broadest of strokes, I agree with the premise that people are people and even across cultures and timelines, we often fall prey to the same kinds of personal failings, but I obviously don't know enough to argue one way or another about what that meant at scale pre-colonialism. I look forward to hearing what other people think about this and continuing the education journey
And would you caution the French over their treatment of France as well? Or, say, during the occupation of France, would you caution the Germans over letting the irresponsible French have their country back? Sorry, I know this isn't that kind of thing, but it was the first example off of the top of my head
Hard disagree; first off: ethics of cliff driving of bison are hardly comparable to the intentional-driving of the species to extinction for genocide. Same as with salmon. Yet neither actually did the environmentally long-lasting damage of extinction within the time-frame of early colonization. The intertribal warfare, cultural systems, and slavery in pre-colonial US is case-dependent and localized. Confronting the expanse that the settlers took war and slavery -across continents and cultures- is to show just how hypocritical colonizer rhetoric was for things like manifest destiny. The myth of the stoic, peaceful-nature-love natives (as oglala and tlingit myself) is just a pan-indigenous stereotype that paints a whole continent of millions the same. There are common cultural themes of appreciating and caring for nature which are present everywhere, but they get roped into a weird idea of if genocide was warranted or not, as if that is the hinge for which people deserve to live. Its absurd to expect millions to be perfect ideologues rather than small groups of disparate communities, each w its own identity and practices.
I don't understand how landback peovides housing and food and makes injustice just goes poof when we "do" landback. I've heard several speakers on the topic and still haven't heard anything close to actual rules of governance in a landback system. Can we get a video on specifics?
we're talking about a whole continent with multiple occupying states, it's not a simple or one-size-fits-all solution. different indigenous peoples have had different forms of governance for hundreds of years. at the moment, an indigenous movement we can learn from includes the zapatistas in chiapas. another would be the haudenosaunee confederacy (it's been around for almost 900 years). if land back means a return to the indigenous worldviews then there won't housing or food for profit. the justice system would likely be run on a restorative model, many nations in the north of turtle island already do this. land back isn't an organized movement with elected representatives so you there's no specific person that can answer all your questions :/
@rileynavarra7652 i hear you. and therein lies a huge problem with trying get a nation to get behind something like landback. as it stands individuals can hand over their assets that are currently on the land of xyz tribe within the currently so-called nation. this would give capital to the xyz tribe. fantastic ... but lets be real who of us backing landback are land owners? or even have assets of any real value? xyz tribe can gain allies that will petition local governments to do ... something... but realistically ... what? there has to be a list of demands to petition for. and if it is giving land back... unless we are talking "unused lands", i can't imagine governing bodies to comply without incentive. "if land back means a return to the indigenous worldviews then there won't housing or food for profit. the justice system would likely be run on a restorative model" i find this hypothetical interesting but .....a governance shift does not magically change the minds of the people within the system. we know, time and time again that paradigm shifts occur when the PEOPLE shift; then the system follows. when i hear these hypotheticals, i do not see them applying to 330 million people across the united state. even if an ENTIRE TOWN was to make a landback shift ... what will they do? disincorporate? re-incorporate into their own township? would they accept federal law? would they resist federal law? would the land be fought legally to become part of federally protected land? these are real world questions that should be asked and answerable in videos like this. --- municipal concerns immediately start getting complicated with any major change of governance.... water, electrical, waste management, 'law' enforcement, public education, every committee on budgeting. (you see how this starts getting complicated without more solid information as to what landback means?) i live in a city. are you aware of landback / lifestyle /thought regarding major urban centers?
This was painful to listen to. Where to even begin. The speakers seem to have no clear understanding of what they want and they are trying to preach landback as just communism, which still fails to address WHERE ARE PEOPLE GOING TO LIVE? This notion that libs must be sold the idea that every step towards egality will benefit them is disingenuous and foolish. To the extent those enjoying the spoils of colonization benefit, it is only because the capitalist system already alienated them. In Haiti, Vietnam, and now Palestine, the process of reclamation was and is deeply unpleasant for the colonial group. They are trying to argue plantation owners giving up their slaves will actually benefit them. No it won't. They seem to have 0 clue as to how this would happen. The US military is going to say "oh sowy here is ur land, i didn mean it. Pwease don be mad at me internationawl commoonity." Looking at Palestine again, we can see that a prime method of colonialism is isolation of native populations internally ie the reservation system. Any landback initiative in America that doesn't seek a single continuous annex of land to be shared by all native people in the US, if not all of N. America, is unserious and doomed to failure. The tribes are different but will be alike in their extinction. To survive is to change. White people did not achieve dominance by staying the same and neither has China or Japan. I am increasingly convinced that political movements rooted in race as a first principle are doomed to failure because how people actually live and how to achieve that becomes secondary and incomprehensible. If your political philosophy rests on the people oppressing you deciding to not do that and "obeying treasties" I have bad news. When you engage in simple practicality they call you an extremist, but history teaches us victory brings absolution.
So the speakers are saying there is 100% guarantee that no-one will be moved out, and we will get universal healthcare....? .... come on... this is the exact hyperbole that makes people approached with skepticism. There is just this vague handshake agreement that things will get better.
I think what they are saying is that Land Back as an ethos shares resonance with something like full communism, where no one owns private property and people's needs are met by the community with no profit motive. There's nothing magical about giving land back and poof everything is fixed, but the societal shift that would enable land back is necessary for other things like free healthcare, free housing, etc
Just listen to his talking points about Israel patiently, and then ask if he thinks Native Americans should begin their artillary bombardment of the western world with our hospitals.
If some of the Discord audio is hard for you to follow, turn on subtitles, I worked pretty hard to make sure they capture anything the mics didn't quite pick up.
Always incredibly grateful when content creators add proper closed captions.
@@Coffeepanda294 hear hear (or read read, I guess). #NoMoreCraptions! Thanks, Phil!
thank you for your service!
Anyone getting offended at the idea of land back fundamentally doesn’t understand how violent private property is
That's just it. They know that private property is violent and think land back means the violence will be redirected towards them. That's what they're so scared of.
Yes because having a cute little house on one acre of private land is sooooo violent! The poor children
@@TheyWillKnowAnother You are going to rent to children? Yes, I'd say poor children
@@TheyWillKnowAnotherconsidering it is probably land violently expropriated from indigenous nation(s) that originally inhabited that land and has continued to be prevented from returning to their ancestral lands, yes, it is violent.
I think further than that there is a disconnect on the difference between private and personal property: normal people don't own private property, businesses and governments do.
who's ready to be seen as The Disappointment this turkey day 🔥🔥🔥
somebody's going to have to tell my jewish neolib family members that no, Israel isn't in the right actually, and it's gonna have to be me
Last year I told grandma that she has been groomed under patriarchy to do all the cooking and cleaning because she is a woman and society doesn’t value her so why not go with land back this year.
TEAM WEIRDO SETTING THE TABLE YO
@@Seranovhow’d it go?
Sorry but i think only people who know for a fact that the lands they're living on are a legacy of brutal colonialism by their ancestors, will ever think that landback is revenge.
The fear of violent retribution is only present, because you know your people had done violence upon others, and assume the victims would act violently like you.
It's very telling. And petty, dumb and disgusting.
How dare you steal this home from my landlord and allow me to just live here for free
If this is a gotcha, it feels like a strange one.
I am fully aware of the brutality and horrors of colonialism. I think they should be stopped, and the work of decolonizing my own view of the world is work I'm trying to do.
That said, I'm not convinced that anyone is immune to things like greed, pride, or fear. There's nothing about being the victim of colonialism or genocide, that makes it impossible for people to violently retribute, given the opportunity.
I also would like to not die, or be deported to Europe.
None of this means I oppose landback, or that I actually think violent retribution is something I need to worry about. I just don't think having that question makes me (or another person who might be worried about it) a bad person.
I think one of the most important points of this movement is, remember, this is at its core a _progressive_ movement. We're not hearkening back to a mythical better past. We do not, in fact, want to return all land to its historical owners in search of some hypothetical better original state. We can incorporate better praxis going into the future.
Land Back is simple. _Give the gods be damned land back._ Not to the natives, _or_ to the settlers. To the _people who live there now._ If you live there now, keep it. Use it for yourself. If you don't? Go do your business at home, or come here and live with us. Either one is fine actually, as long as you're respectful about it.
What this is about, at its core, is _reintegrating_ the value of our land into our communities, and to stop letting people who have no stake take it from us. They lose nothing when they devalue it, and _that's_ why it's bad. They'll never care if they don't personally pay the cost, and the people who pay the cost are the ones who live there. If we want to stop people exploiting the land and form a more constructive relationship with nature, we should be centering the people who deal with that land on a day to day basis, not whoever has the money to own the rights.
This is a better description than "a settler can never care for land as well as an indigenous person". Thank you for putting it here.
@@joshuasanderson7359 It _was_ giving me mildly Nationalistic vibes, so I felt like I'd air my thoughts. No disrespect to the guests of course, I just feel like it's a mistake in messaging to resort to Magical Native "We're just inherently better at this, so let us do it" nonsense. It is, factually, the case that First Nations peoples _did_ take better care of the land, but it's definitely not the case that settlers _can't_ do better so we should leave it to the experts. The underlying reason they do better is mostly just another Capitalism Bad. America and Canada absolutely _could_ adopt the generational wisdom that made them so good at it as practice regardless of the involvement of First Nations cultures, they just fundamentally haven't cared enough yet. The argument for why Land Back would work as a pragmatic solution to environmental extraction is simply less "We can do better, because we're good at this" and more "We _would_ do better, because we care more."
Mostly the problem is private property being bad in general anyway. This is just another anticapitalist lens with specific local context for a specific local problem. Important, obviously, praxis for change is almost always best considered locally and on specific problems. But also just a facet of the overall critique when talking about theory or ideology, and echoed at all levels because it's addressing the same fundamental problem.
@@connerblank5069it doesn’t sound nationalistic because native people never worshipped a nation.. you are just reactionary about the wording because you don’t feel included in it.. perhaps you are identifying with the colonizers instead of identifying with the native people. Everyone having collective control over the land is only better then what we currently have if people decolonize their minds. Put in the work deconstructing your current moral compass and thinking about things on a deeper level. Why do you think the native people would be nationalistic when they have no history of viewing Mother Earth that way.
@@bitchywoman I didn't say they were being nationalistic, just that it had those vibes. The rhetoric was very similar to something a reactionary nationalist might say about their own project. That doesn't necessarily mean they have that kind of intent, of course, hence me calling it a failure in messaging rather than a problem with their motivations.
Also important to note that I don't think the _project_ has nationalist vibes, just the way these people in particular were talking about it.
No. This was total gibberish. It is about returning stolen land to the people who had been living there from the very people that stole it. If you are on land your grandfather stole you would not be staying there unless no one was around to reclaim it.
Not only are we anti-cop. We are anti policing in general! I love this discussion! Thanks for speaking on such an important issue
Love seeing Chris from Silver Spook show up in things, everybody should be checking out Neofeud for real if you want a game that really understands cyberpunk.
Cyberpunk 2077 does it better cope
I made one (1) editing mistake. The first person to spot it wins one (1) free vegan sausage from any participating K-Mart Express Deli in the lower quad-county area (expires 1/1/20something)
Keep your fingers crossed the winner isn't Australian. Kmart is still alive and well over there.
Looked like you repeated the part where Silver Spook says that people don't have to adopt Blackfoot or any specific Nation's economic and social system but that we should be seeking to learn from them.?
@@jbvin ding ding, enjoy your sausage
😂 that's like the best gift@@ThatDangDad
It seems like there are non-native people/settlers in more rural areas who have formed meaningful relationships with the land they live on. Their position reminds me of the video about “people who are half right”; they want their environment to be healthy and continue providing life-giving resources, and they would say they don’t want corporate interests controlling and harming the land they live on. The problem is that vast majority have fully accepted capitalist land ownership and management as the only option, are attached to the colonial status quo, and are afraid of supposedly giving up the power they have, or at least think they have, to another group. It’s so difficult to break down those mental barriers.
Though I honestly worry even more about getting suburbanites to actually understand and be on board with land back; they’re so cut off from the land. I hear how some of them talk about their water guzzling bright green lawns in dry areas and the whole effort feels doomed.
Imo it's the people watering grass in a desert are the first people that need their land taken
@@QuietlyHere666 most of the times in those cases their forced to do so because of local ordinance
ITS A NEW MIC!
Still haven't figured out the semblance.
So I do apologize to headphone users 🥲
Righto
Sharing this around while I cook that USAmerican Thanksgiving dinner. Thank you once again for your work, and in this case, hosting and amplifying voices!
We can see two different perspectives right next to each other:
38:38 Chris: Land back will benefit everyone.
37:00 Tuck, Yang: Land back may or may not benefit everyone, and that's not important. What's important is doing the right thing.
Tuck and Yang seem like crypto-ethno-nationalists. If you don't care about forming coalitions and solidarity when diverse groups of people, than your decolonial project is going to ultimately fail.
My dad is dead. Thanks for being our dad.
I wish my dad was dead. Thanks for being our new dad😂
I'm full anarcho-anti-colonialism here, kick us all back across the ocean for me, but the thing I struggle with is the idea of landback being so broad. At times in the video, it's not about giving the land back to Indigenous populations, at others it's very concretely about that. At times the talk is about how the native peoples care better for the land, at others it's about how native people would make better government administrators (eg. Hawaiian health care). I'm fully aware that the level of concreteness I'm suggesting isn't necessarily in line with non-colonial values, but we're talking about trying to make action happen and that needs clarity and shared objectives
Leftism is a suicide cult.
when it comes to land back i feel like we should clarify who we're discussing in any given conversation (eg: maybe i'm talking about lack of education on a particular first nation, maybe it's an issue that affects a particular geographic region encompassing multiple ethnic groups/nations, etc) so it's easier to understand who's knowledge we're trying to incorporate and what the material needs are. if you're on stolen land, learn about the local indigenous peoples. learn a bit about their recent history, current issues, and what they're trying to do. if you have the money to, financially support our cultural programs, businesses, artists (check out snotty nose rez kids!).
if you're not indigenous, i'll say ahead of time that sometimes we can be a bit insensitive to well-meaning white allies (compared to brown allies who prolly experienced colonization in their homeland) and that's a reaction from community trauma. as long as you're genuine about wanting to support our liberation, your support will be appreciated.
if you're into academic stuff here's some recs (as curated by my ojibway communist self) :
Tuck, Eve & Wayne Yang, (2012). Decolonization is Not a Metaphor.
Herlich Garber, Elijah, (2023). When the theoretical confronted the practical : Zapatista territorial autonomy as opposition to the cooperation of state and capitalism.
Coulthard, Glen, (2014). Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition.
Betasamosake Simpson, Leanne, (2017). As We Have Always Done: Indigenous Freedom Through Radical Resistance.
I dont think a more concrete overview is necessary for such a broad topic - colonization affects every tribe in different ways so land back in each case will communicate what that the local tribe is dealing with. Thus action relevant to you would be what your local tribes have for objectives. Indian law is notoriously complicated, thus 'land-back' is its antithesis; an undoing of the red-tape of American government and bureaucracy that entwines every tribes' right to self-govern and manage their space.
Don't dirty landback by comparing it to violent decolonization. It's gross.
Accept the fact Americans own the land
New Dang Daddy drop!
*adds to the playlist*
Thanks for sharing this and helping open my eyes to the meaning behind the idea of land back, which I was already down with at face value. 😊
you can't own land just like you can't own your mother is so incredibly evocative. i got to follow more indigenous creators
also should not have started this video so close to bedtime, hope the comment makes up for the lack of view time....
We own it
As a huge advocate for the local Minnesota music scenes I have had good luck finding Indigenous artists the past couple years, particularly with rap.
I'm a huge fan of Snotty Nose Rez Kids but I think they are PNW, I'd love to find some MN indigenous hip hop
Baby Shel
Darren Sipity
haphduzn
knox
leftifield
Manny Phesto
sake red
Tall Paul
Iron Boy
bonus is Joe Rainey who isn't Hip-Hop but puts a modern spin on Indigenous Folk music.
If we can get rid of HOAs in favor of Stewards of the Land, I would be so happy.
That Eve Tuck quote is so good!
And that story about the wolves is so important. There are many layers of significance to it.
So I’m understanding that Land Back is very much a kin to Anarchism. It’s peace without power. It’s life without the need of government. It’s simply doing what is right.
Me, a German, rocking to the intro song.
Me realising what the lyrics are meant to mean 😀.
Btw: banger remix, we’re all in this together and less dissimilar than we might think. And when fascism comes for us, it will, at one point, kill indiscriminately.
This was incredibly informative. Thanks Dad!
Thank you all of you. You did great.
The spiritual dimension was the last and final piece that cemented landback to me as a critical overarching goal as a white activist. I don’t want to be a settler living severed from the land, apathetic and unmoored, I want to live somewhere that I have a relationship with the land, and without landback that is institutionally impossible. It won’t be possible to be spiritually whole and have that relationship with the land I live on until indigenous people regain sovereignty and control of the land and land management. So in addition to the ethical, philosophical, and practical reasons, I find myself greatly motivated to promote landback causes because until indigenous people are respected and have their sovereignty returned people like me will never have the chance to learn how to live with the land and not just exploit it.
its a good day when you get a dang dad upload 🎉 😁
How did I come upon this gem of a video
it was your lucky day
Something about this feels disturbingly conservative. I don't own a house, and even if they did kick me out of it I wouldn't be bothered. If its my turn to be a refugee then its my turn to be a refugee and I'm not going to rage against that or freak out. The thing that bothers me is this idea that the indigenous people inherently are better at handling land, and that there was a superior time in the past when a society of (presumably) all pure blooded indigenous people was able to do everything right and it was all great and the way to fix things is to return to that time.
They alluded to it here and there in the interview and maybe I clipped out a part that would've explained this better, but I think they are talking about how we can provably see that capitalist land management has wrecked the land. More forest fires, dried or dirty rivers, animal depopulation... whereas places that use indigenous land management practices tend not to see that same level of destruction. So I think the argument is that in the great laboratory of life, we can see that indigenous land management is restorative and holistic and capitalist land management depletes and degrades.
@@ThatDangDad Thank you for your kind response.
They did definitely bring that up, and I agree that capitalism has provably failed the land. Perhaps it's because I've been exposed to a lot of work by hunters and botanists and white people who deeply love the land, but I feel there are more methods for taking care of the land than just indigenous and capitalist.
That being said the capitalist "method" if it can even be called that will consume all other methods and the land itself unless forcibly kept out, and I support that removal and Land Back wholeheartedly.
My concern is a minor technicality, and the concept is still good and worthy of support. It just feels like parts of the Land Back idea as expressed by them overlaps in the ideas ven diagram with a lot of conservative concepts too.
You’d go homeless for nothing 😂😂😂😂
@@people2chronically-online People go homeless for nothing all the time, I don't think I have some special immunity. I pray you don't get in a car accident and become a paraplegic.
@@4dragons632 where i come from being kicked out of your home is basically a death sentence
🎉🎉🎉
Um.. it's not the settlers that will be waiting for a long time for a written out plan. Settlers will simply not comply and it will be LandBack that will be waiting.... what happened to meeting people where they are?
Is it really too much to get certain things sin writting? Settlers of all people understand that handshake agreements are breakable, even treaties are breakable, only things back with money and guns have rigidity.
To speak with your oppressor you generally must speak In Their langauge or be such a thorn in their systems they they back off.
It's certainly not moral necessarily to have to appease oppressors, but also most of these "oppressors" by this point are just cogs in the system and just need a good argument to become a wrench.
I mean, be honest, how much indigenous writing have you actually sought out such that you believe nothing has been fleshed out or written down?
@@ThatDangDad of course that's a fair point. Realistically maybe 20+ hours of content on the issues.
The question is more for the masses. Early adopters will dive in and radicalize themselves on a topic. There will also be people that hold views that will stunt their intest at all. But the masses in the middle need more than a sound bite but less than a PhD dissertation.
Like most things I look for the sweet spot, enough information to feel confident, enough of a goal to know how to launch a phase 1, and enough of an action plan to know the actions will be impactful.
An example of what I would love to see is a collection of all the plans and definitions out there by each school of thought on it.
(On a tangent, a better online network for all meaningful action groups would be great )
You’re not getting land back cry
Thanks for making this video. It's a very important topic that is very thoroughly misunderstood, and even more people are completely ignorant about the reality of colonization in this country and the world. No doubt this introduction will be effective for many people.
Thank you for the video! Appreciated all of it but the book recommendations were awesome!
… I’m pro land back. But the two first people interviewed here… they said nature should be given to natives because natives work it better. I’m sorry about saying this, but that’s literally the reason colonialists argued for stealing the lands of people. That “those fools with their backwards culture don’t know how to properly manage this place”. That’s a messy reasoning for giving back land to people. A simpler reason is that people got scammed and stolen from, people have a right for what’s theirs and to not be conned by others into losing everything they have, ergo return the stolen land. Environmental issues are also very important to me, but I won’t try to demolish a city because I deem its people unwise. I’ll damn well try to manage various ways to make people not abuse the world around them, but i understand that issue as seperate from the historically unjust abuses of communities and peoples. A person deserves their place to live whether they have wise ecological customs or not, and a person who messes the ecological balance does not immediately lose right to their access to a space. If colonialists have learned how to properly care for the land that does not give them the right to take whatever land from whoever native they see. The ravaging of territories for the sake of personal profit at the cost of native communities is an evil demanding a repair which should be opposed and if possible entirely undone, but land back brings connotations of returning unjust conquering. Not the care for nature. Arguing against it because nativity makes one wiser and better than any non native is abit race essentialist, which i don’t see why we should agree with.
I think my read of what they are saying is that colonizer land practices have been proven to be destructive and unsustainable and thus a return to sustainable indigenous land management is the way to fix what we can see is broken. I think this is in contrast to the colonial mindset of "those savages aren't making any profit with all those resources!" terra nullius reasoning. Natives want the land back to be free for all to enjoy as opposed to land back as property they fence off and work. So I didn't take this as a "natives are in their essence better than whites" kind of thing but rather as "you will know a tree by the fruits it produces" kind of reasoning.
Nope cope it’s our lane
@@people2chronically-online your username is incredible
Thank you for this.
That thumbnail is an excellent look for you
[The following is silly snark, because I don't have anything legitimately bad to say, and yet you lead me to expect[0] a desire to push back, so... I thought I'd live up to the expectation in a silly way, just for fun. So:]
41:58 - hey, your viewers are not a monolith! 😉 How do you know if I'll vibe on the game? ;) Though, I admit I do vibe with Silver Spook's politics, so there's that. :)
#LandBack!
[0] referring to a Xitter post that includes "i have gotten more pushback on this video in the first 4 hours than i've gotten in months". I didn't actually expect to be among the ones who'd push back, particularly, but, it's an excuse for my joke.
I feel like I stumbled upon the quartering's cooler brother.
if jeremy was my brother i would've put antifreeze in his dr. pepper a loooong time ago
land back land back land back
another great video
I have to laugh at how eerily accurate the algorithms are at analzying my brain algorithms.
I'm literally mindlessly scrolling and pondering the fact that I'm finally at a point where racism and bigotry doesn't HURT my bpd brain that had an insanely intense meltdown mid pandemic as the genocide revelation settled in. after that i felt like a child for years. all bigorty set me off and i couldn't control how long it would hurt for.
now I'm finally at the place where I can be directly biggoted at and it doesn't bother me so much anymore.
like how messed up is our world where "normal" is being able to deal with racists.
and then a landback dangdad vid pops up at the perfect time, what a chuckle i just chuckled
Great topic, but as a Historian and Coast Salish Anthropologist, i can tell you, that many native groups have different ways of viewing land. Here in Washington state, they had defined land ownership, resource access ownership, and one technology allowed, time and time again, natives would act just as destructively as many settlers... chasing 400 bison off a cliff for 20 animals to process... the Salish Sea people, netting entire rivers of salmon, dumping 100s of thousands of wasted fish into the sea or into their soil. Cherokee... holding over 40,000 slaves... humans act very similar across the world, under our capitalist system especially.
Im just saying beware of nostalgia of a time of indigenous paradise... when many times. Wars, cast systems and slavery were extremely common.
"natives would act just as destructively as many settlers" did they though? which natives? like which specific peoples? from what i know, our (i'm afro-indigenous) usage of animal products are much more sustainable as we use as much of the animal as possible as well as give offerings back (we're thankful for what the animal can provide for us), in an ecology class i learnt that a certain species of tree in coast salish territories (i'm on musqueam land at ubc) benefitted from having the nutrients in the fish but now fish aren't making their way up streams anymore due to settler fishing practices, and cherokees owning slaves cannot, in good faith, be compared to the transatlantic slave trade, they operated on different systems & interests. today, indigenous people (globally) are land protectors first and foremost, our knowledge is currently being utilized by western scientists to deal with climate change. lastly, in conversations relating to land back, we're not preaching a return to the exact lifestyles we had pre-contact so while we can learn from them, we should focus on improving the material conditions of current/future generations of indigenous peoples. edit: since you clarified ur background i feel like i should mention i'm a ubc student, i study indigenous teacher education with a focus on high school / post-secondary history & social studies. i'm also ojibway & work in an indigenous library so we likely spend a lot of time researching the same topics
Ahh.. a historian and anthropologist. That explains your sweeping conclusion. If you’re a historian and anthropologist I would like to know the following: what methodological approaches to research you have applied. Your theoretical or conceptual frameworks. The data sets you worked with. Control for bias. The scope and limitations of your research, with special considerations for how anthropology contributed to colonization and the construction of history. With all of this at hand, why the sweeping conclusion since this is antithetical to most modern anthropologists who work with Indigenous people.
I appreciate the reply! I think, in the broadest of strokes, I agree with the premise that people are people and even across cultures and timelines, we often fall prey to the same kinds of personal failings, but I obviously don't know enough to argue one way or another about what that meant at scale pre-colonialism. I look forward to hearing what other people think about this and continuing the education journey
And would you caution the French over their treatment of France as well? Or, say, during the occupation of France, would you caution the Germans over letting the irresponsible French have their country back? Sorry, I know this isn't that kind of thing, but it was the first example off of the top of my head
Hard disagree; first off: ethics of cliff driving of bison are hardly comparable to the intentional-driving of the species to extinction for genocide. Same as with salmon. Yet neither actually did the environmentally long-lasting damage of extinction within the time-frame of early colonization. The intertribal warfare, cultural systems, and slavery in pre-colonial US is case-dependent and localized. Confronting the expanse that the settlers took war and slavery -across continents and cultures- is to show just how hypocritical colonizer rhetoric was for things like manifest destiny. The myth of the stoic, peaceful-nature-love natives (as oglala and tlingit myself) is just a pan-indigenous stereotype that paints a whole continent of millions the same. There are common cultural themes of appreciating and caring for nature which are present everywhere, but they get roped into a weird idea of if genocide was warranted or not, as if that is the hinge for which people deserve to live. Its absurd to expect millions to be perfect ideologues rather than small groups of disparate communities, each w its own identity and practices.
I don't understand how landback peovides housing and food and makes injustice just goes poof when we "do" landback.
I've heard several speakers on the topic and still haven't heard anything close to actual rules of governance in a landback system.
Can we get a video on specifics?
we're talking about a whole continent with multiple occupying states, it's not a simple or one-size-fits-all solution. different indigenous peoples have had different forms of governance for hundreds of years. at the moment, an indigenous movement we can learn from includes the zapatistas in chiapas. another would be the haudenosaunee confederacy (it's been around for almost 900 years). if land back means a return to the indigenous worldviews then there won't housing or food for profit. the justice system would likely be run on a restorative model, many nations in the north of turtle island already do this. land back isn't an organized movement with elected representatives so you there's no specific person that can answer all your questions :/
@rileynavarra7652 i hear you.
and therein lies a huge problem with trying get a nation to get behind something like landback.
as it stands individuals can hand over their assets that are currently on the land of xyz tribe within the currently so-called nation. this would give capital to the xyz tribe. fantastic ... but lets be real who of us backing landback are land owners? or even have assets of any real value?
xyz tribe can gain allies that will petition local governments to do ... something... but realistically ... what?
there has to be a list of demands to petition for. and if it is giving land back... unless we are talking "unused lands", i can't imagine governing bodies to comply without incentive.
"if land back means a return to the indigenous worldviews then there won't housing or food for profit. the justice system would likely be run on a restorative model"
i find this hypothetical interesting but .....a governance shift does not magically change the minds of the people within the system. we know, time and time again that paradigm shifts occur when the PEOPLE shift; then the system follows. when i hear these hypotheticals, i do not see them applying to 330 million people across the united state.
even if an ENTIRE TOWN was to make a landback shift ... what will they do? disincorporate? re-incorporate into their own township? would they accept federal law? would they resist federal law? would the land be fought legally to become part of federally protected land?
these are real world questions that should be asked and answerable in videos like this.
---
municipal concerns immediately start getting complicated with any major change of governance.... water, electrical, waste management, 'law' enforcement, public education, every committee on budgeting. (you see how this starts getting complicated without more solid information as to what landback means?)
i live in a city. are you aware of landback / lifestyle /thought regarding major urban centers?
@@rileynavarra7652and yet they’re gone so cope you’re not getting land back
@@people2chronically-online who's gone? not my ojibway relatives lol that's for sure
@@rileynavarra7652 I bet you they’re in a reservation, our land mf
oo
It sounds like a silly pipe dream if I’m being honest.
oh ok, i'll let the rest of the group know
@@ThatDangDad thanks, I really appreciate it.
comment boost
This was painful to listen to. Where to even begin. The speakers seem to have no clear understanding of what they want and they are trying to preach landback as just communism, which still fails to address WHERE ARE PEOPLE GOING TO LIVE? This notion that libs must be sold the idea that every step towards egality will benefit them is disingenuous and foolish. To the extent those enjoying the spoils of colonization benefit, it is only because the capitalist system already alienated them. In Haiti, Vietnam, and now Palestine, the process of reclamation was and is deeply unpleasant for the colonial group. They are trying to argue plantation owners giving up their slaves will actually benefit them. No it won't.
They seem to have 0 clue as to how this would happen. The US military is going to say "oh sowy here is ur land, i didn mean it. Pwease don be mad at me internationawl commoonity." Looking at Palestine again, we can see that a prime method of colonialism is isolation of native populations internally ie the reservation system. Any landback initiative in America that doesn't seek a single continuous annex of land to be shared by all native people in the US, if not all of N. America, is unserious and doomed to failure. The tribes are different but will be alike in their extinction. To survive is to change. White people did not achieve dominance by staying the same and neither has China or Japan.
I am increasingly convinced that political movements rooted in race as a first principle are doomed to failure because how people actually live and how to achieve that becomes secondary and incomprehensible. If your political philosophy rests on the people oppressing you deciding to not do that and "obeying treasties" I have bad news. When you engage in simple practicality they call you an extremist, but history teaches us victory brings absolution.
So the speakers are saying there is 100% guarantee that no-one will be moved out, and we will get universal healthcare....? .... come on... this is the exact hyperbole that makes people approached with skepticism. There is just this vague handshake agreement that things will get better.
I think what they are saying is that Land Back as an ethos shares resonance with something like full communism, where no one owns private property and people's needs are met by the community with no profit motive. There's nothing magical about giving land back and poof everything is fixed, but the societal shift that would enable land back is necessary for other things like free healthcare, free housing, etc
Just listen to his talking points about Israel patiently, and then ask if he thinks Native Americans should begin their artillary bombardment of the western world with our hospitals.
Please do some further research on the so- called “climate crisis.”
why, i already know that it's real and terrible because i don't get my "news" from Alex Jones