Arguing for indigenous sovereignty with other settlers

Have any good reading on that?

What would be the ecological impact of millions of anglos getting dumped into the atlantic ocean

Wait, being hunted or being the hunter?

Returning public lands in the capitalist system would just mean that the corporations will strong arm the tribes to exploit the land unfortunately

This has actually happened before

Idk if you're joking or not but Land Back advocates do not advocate for white people to be sent back to Europe. So you're just self flagellating and its kind of embarrassing.

For real though every time the sun hits my skin it’s a reminder my ancestors sinned by going this far south. It’s literally painful to exist here why the fuck did they come here?

No because then you would be a refugee and we all know how Europe feels about refugees

there is literally zero chance that landback will result in any violence or violence-adjacent stuff on the part of native american people
the settlers outnumber the rightful keepers of the land like 100 to 1

Doing evil onto evil doesn't "compensate victims" lmao. Retributive justice is poison. It's also worth noting that none of the literature I've read on Land Back stuff advocates for anything like that to be done to settlers. And reperations aren't "doing evil" onto white people.

not sure about that one.

we are at this point talking about the descendants of people that did these things

Brittany is france

Most recolonization projects are geared towards land determination being returned to indigenous groups, an example of this type of determination being violated is the long history of pipelines being brought through or near Native land within this century, as well as mineral/oil rights being fucked over as well and thereby financial proceeds drawn away that would support the community (there's a reason why so many Tribal lands push for casinos is due to the income and jobs that supports the community and creates a tourist economy that is distinctly different from those commonly seen outside of tribal areas (i.e. shitty jobs, worker exploitation, money going towards some out of state LLC). Still though this is one type of interpretation but none that I've seen so far are in the "drive everyone the fuck away from us" and is instead more towards "hey can we not have settler waste shit placed near us or have our resources taken without our knowledge/consent?". Additionally a lot of land near most contested indigenous grounds has been dismantled into larger big AG projects so if that land was taken back it's mainly being taken and redistributed from corporate collectives i.e. fuck Monsanto etc.

When I've had the conversation in the image, it's never had a chance to go anywhere near policy talk. They bring up "But the scary brown people will do a revenge," as soon as you point out that the European colonial project was evil from its inception and remains so

They think morality has something to do with geopolitics, and as soon as you point out the contradiction that "your story's heroes are actually villains" they experience dissonance and try to resolve it by applying their beloved moral symmetry

If that's true, then we should be annihilated balanced against we haven't been annihilated, so that must not be the whole truth. This returns their minds to placidity

It means the return of the stewardship of this land to the colonized people that are still here fighting for national sovereignty to this day.

No most people aren't going to get deported or anything but I could probably make a long list of ones that should.

1. it's almost certainly not going to happen in your lifetime
2. forceful deportation would be impossible
3. the euros won't let you make landfall

It means instead of having the US federal government (or other settler colonial equivalent) as the law of the land, it would be whatever tribal government or nation that you currently reside in. The tribal government would have their own set of laws that you would have to obey and set of customs that you would have to respect. For example, Thanksgiving and the 4th of July aren't happening on any Indigenous land, but there would be replaced with Indigenous holidays that have meaning towards the particular Indigenous nation. Instead of teaching lies like how George Washington didn't have teeth from his Black slaves, history would focus on the history of the particular Indigenous nation.

In terms of the settlers currently living on Indigenous land, most likely they would be a naturalization process where the settlers would be classified as immigrants who have to apply for Indigenous citizenship in order to become a citizen of that particular tribal nation. Current enrolled tribal members would be the original citizens of the decolonized land. Black people would most likely be automatically granted citizenship as well since none of the Indigenous people I follow and works I've read classify Black people as settlers.

As immigrants, the ex-settlers would be granted a set of rights but also barred from various forms of political participation like voting just like immigrants of every other nation. They would have the choice of applying for Indigenous citizenship, and if they qualify for Indigenous citizenship and pass the Indigenous citizenship test, they would be considered an Indigenous citizen under the Indigenous government.

I think people here are confusing citizenship with ethnicity (and race). In a free and sovereign Lakota Republic, you could have a German Lakota in the sense of a Lakota citizen of German descent. Using Hawaii as an example, there were Chinese immigrants who moved to the Kingdom of Hawaii where they were granted Hawaiian citizenship, and when the US illegally annexed Hawaii, the Chinese Hawaiians became Chinese Americans (technically there was a legal limbo since the US didn't grant Chinese people US citizenship so those Chinese Hawaiians were Chinese ?????? for a while). And when Hawaii becomes free and sovereign again, those Chinese Americans would go back to being Chinese Hawaiians.