[Pants-of-dog]

PoD doesn't know what he's talking about, Natives have full citizenship. They actually have more rights and privileges than non-natives. They're the only group allowed semi-autonomous self-government. The white man isn't their problem these days, their problem now is extreme social dysfunction. That and capitalism, but capitalism is everybody's problem.

In Canada, everyone is supposed to be able to access health care through provincial Medicare programs.

First Nations people cannot. Instead, they are supposed to access health care through a separate federal system.

Because of this disparity in providing health care, many First Nations communities cannot access health care the way non-natives do.

So no, they do not have the same rights.

More importantly, ypu seem confused about my claim. I said that the relationship between Washington, or Ottawa, and the indigenous nations residing in North America is a colonial relationship.

I am not discussing citizenship, but colonialism. Citizenship is about the relationship between the government of a nation and the individual member of that same nation.

Colonialism is about the relationship between two nations.

That's not really as big a problem within Western societies as the sjw fanatics claim. The West does have a major problem with economic oppression as well as severe deficits of democracy but institutional racism isn't a major problem in Western Europe and North America. Liberals only make it out to be a major problem because it provides left cover for their neoliberalism.

I completely agree that one shoild not listen to liberals and SJWs about colonialism and racism and how the current set up favours Europeans and their descendants.

Instead, you should listen to indigenous people and people of colour who are directly affected by these problems.

Because most of the immigrants come from backwards cultures and they bring a lot of problems with them.

Please note that it is the US and Europe that is exporting neoliberalism abroad. This seems like a thing that backward cultures would do.

[Albert]

The only western leader to speak out about this.

[danholo]

Colonialism is about the relationship between two nations.

Like diplomacy? Why do the First Nations suck at it? I'd think it more accurate to say it's a relationship between fucked and fucker.

[Sivad]

Colonialism is about the relationship between two nations.

I guess you can define it however you like but then the term just becomes meaningless. If that's how you're defining it then I guess I just don't give a shit about what you call colonialism.

I completely agree that one shoild not listen to liberals and SJWs about colonialism and racism and how the current set up favours Europeans and their descendants.

Instead, you should listen to indigenous people and people of colour who are directly affected by these problems.

I do, but I also take my first hand experience into account and I know for a fact that Natives aren't any more oppressed by the US government than the rest of us. Natives are suffering from the legacy of colonialism, genocide and institutional racism, but none of that is ongoing.

Please note that it is the US and Europe that is exporting neoliberalism abroad. This seems like a thing that backward cultures would do.

Noted. What's your point?

[danholo]

When Hungarians conquered this land it was dwelled by Avars mostly, who were very much like Hungarians themselves, so much that some people even argue they were identical. Some Slavs lived here too who became Hungarians later. But no matter what you and Albert falsely and ignorantly claim here, it's Hungarian land and nobody else than some off-topic internet trolls claims otherwise.

Well, I was trolling, of course. I just find Hungarian history interesting in that sense, that they really are from a far away land. My knowledge, however, was only received at the national museum in Budapest (awesome history and city).

Of course it's Hungarian land. It was built and is maintained by your people, and you didn't give it up. If it's yours, you take it. I really don't care. I'm just interested in this idea of "who own's land" and can empty land have an owner by virtue of proximity of the land that is dwelled upon. It just doesn't make sense, really. In the Hungarian case, they can be counted as invaders on some level, so some people should be denying your right to live there.

[Drlee]

First Nations people cannot. Instead, they are supposed to access health care through a separate federal system.

Because of this disparity in providing health care, many First Nations communities cannot access health care the way non-natives do.

This does not necessarily follow. It is true in the US that native Americans have universal health care and other citizens do not. Sometimes that universal health care is better than average and other times not. In the US sometimes the tribe has taken control of the administration of their care and sometimes not. Their management makes a difference good and bad. Also, many Native Americans live in rural environments where access is problematic in the first place.

So no, they do not have the same rights.

True. They have many rights that other citizens have.

More importantly, ypu seem confused about my claim. I said that the relationship between Washington, or Ottawa, and the indigenous nations residing in North America is a colonial relationship.

Not in the US it isn't. It is a treaty relationship between two nations. Clearly the NA's have been displaced from where they were 150 years ago. Time to get over it. Are you fine with ending this relationship and just telling the NA's to assimilate and get off the government dole? You propose a problem the solution to which is cultural genocide.

I am not discussing citizenship, but colonialism. Citizenship is about the relationship between the government of a nation and the individual member of that same nation.

Colonialism is about the relationship between two nations.

You are talking in circles. I know you are a huge NA fanboy. But you are simply bitching without proposing specific solutions. You do it over and over again. You claim to have proposed solutions but you have not.

Drop the word colonialism. It is virtually meaningless in the context of Native Americans and is pretty much getting that way in South Africa. Try making the real argument. Racism.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The only western leader to speak out about this.

Praise Be To God.

I hope he nails those bastards to the fucking wall with sanctions. It will make my day.

We sanctioned the Apartheid regime, let us sanction the ANC.

[Drlee]

We have to stand against racism whenever we see it. Trump is on the right side of this. Or at least he seems to be.

I can't imagine that this is not obvious to everyone.

It is OK for SA to decide to be an apartheid state again. That is their choice. It is our choice to remain consistent in our response to institutional racism.

[Rich]

Praise Be To God.

I hope he nails those bastards to the fucking wall with sanctions. It will make my day.

We sanctioned the Apartheid regime, let us sanction the ANC.

Futile gesture politics. South Africa was destroyed by immigration. Its the same old story, the siren calls for cheap labour, the unholy alliance of short sighted greedy business people and bleedin heart do gooders. We saw it in the American colonies with the importation of Black slaves. Post World War II in the US with Latino immigration, in Britain with West Indians in the 1950s. In Europe with the mass importation of Muslims.

Contry to popular belief even Israel wasn't free of this idiocy. Israeli business and their political minions were desperate to flood Israel with Palestinian and Arab labour. Thank God for the Intifada. The promise is always the same. Lets flood the country with these poor, ill educated backward foreigners, they can do the jobs that you don't want to. And of course every time as soon as they are in they demand equality even if they lack the hard working, educated, prudent innovative culture that creates success.

[Pants-of-dog]

I guess you can define it however you like but then the term just becomes meaningless. If that's how you're defining it then I guess I just don't give a shit about what you call colonialism.

I am using the common accepted definition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism

Colonialism is the policy of a foreign polity seeking to extend or retain its authority over other people or territories, generally with the aim of developing or exploiting them to the benefit of the colonizing country and of helping the colonies modernize in terms defined by the colonizers, especially in economics, religion, and health.

If you wish to reject the idea of colonialism, go ahead.

I have no idea how you are going to make a decent analysis of SA or indigenous people in NA without discussing colonialism.

I do, but I also take my first hand experience into account and I know for a fact that Natives aren't any more oppressed by the US government than the rest of us. Natives are suffering from the legacy of colonialism, genocide and institutional racism, but none of that is ongoing.

You do realise that your personal experience is influenced by your own biases, right?

It makes more sense to base your position on more than just personal experiences, and also look at academic sources, studies, articles in papers, etc.

If you wish to provide a source that shows that indigenous people and communities feel they are treated equally and everything is fine now, please present it.

Noted. What's your point?

My point is that in this scenario, the backwards cultures are US and European.

——————————

This does not necessarily follow. It is true in the US that native Americans have universal health care and other citizens do not. Sometimes that universal health care is better than average and other times not. In the US sometimes the tribe has taken control of the administration of their care and sometimes not. Their management makes a difference good and bad. Also, many Native Americans live in rural environments where access is problematic in the first place.

I have no idea why you think that some policy in the US refutes my claim about Canada.

True. They have many rights that other citizens have.

They may have as many rights, but this does not change the fact that colonialism is an ongoing problem.

Not in the US it isn't. It is a treaty relationship between two nations. Clearly the NA's have been displaced from where they were 150 years ago. Time to get over it. Are you fine with ending this relationship and just telling the NA's to assimilate and get off the government dole? You propose a problem the solution to which is cultural genocide.

I have previously asked you to tell me when colonialism ended. You did not answer my question.

Please do so now.

As far as I can tell, the USA is a foreign polity seeking to extend or retain its authority over other people or territories (i.e the indigenous people living in the US), generally with the aim of developing or exploiting them to the benefit of the colonizing country.

This seems like an accurate description of the relationship between the US and indigenous people living there.

Also, I never argued for assimilation. This is a strawman.

You are talking in circles. I know you are a huge NA fanboy. But you are simply bitching without proposing specific solutions. You do it over and over again. You claim to have proposed solutions but you have not.

Drop the word colonialism. It is virtually meaningless in the context of Native Americans and is pretty much getting that way in South Africa. Try making the real argument. Racism.

I was pointing out thatmerely giving citizenship to indigenous people does not magically mean that colonialism no longer exists.

I have also pointed out why it is difficult to provide clear solutions. Since colonialism is a relationship between two nations, the way to solve it involves looking specifically at that relationship and seeing how it perpetuates colonialism. This would be a long and complex discussion, even if we just focused solely on one relationship.

In SA, one of the necessary steps seems to be returning land to its original owners.

But yes, racism against blacks is also part of the argument. Trump, for example, repeated the myth that blacks are killing whte farmers en masse.

———————————

For thise who are claiming that this is racism against whites:

Are all whites being targeted? No.

Are all white farms being targeted? No.

It seems to me that these farms are being targted because they are large farms owned by rich people. The fact that all the rich people are white is because of Apartheid.

So, the people who are arguing that this is a racist act are confusing correlation with causation. They are not seizing the land because the owners are white. They are seizing the land because the owners are rich, and the owners are rich because they profited from a racist system.

[Suntzu]

Praise Be To God.

I hope he nails those bastards to the fucking wall with sanctions. It will make my day.

We sanctioned the Apartheid regime, let us sanction the ANC.

Whatever the reason for seizing the land, the result will be the same. It will be split up into small plot. They will build a hut and walk on about half of the plot. The rest they will "farm" with a sharp stick and slowly starve.

[Truth To Power]

Why?

People have rights to what they would have if others did not deprive them of it -- mainly life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. We have a right to use land because we are naturally at liberty to use all land non-exclusively, as our hunter-gatherer and nomadic-herding ancestors did for millions of years. I realize you aren't on board with that account of human prehistory, but it's just an established empirical fact, sorry. If someone owns land, then others' liberty to use it has been removed. That may be just a tiny salami slice of their right to liberty, and no doubt it was tolerated at first on that basis. But as the salami slices start to add up into the thousands and millions, less and less of people's rights to liberty remain. If all the land suitable for making a living is someone's property, the landless have not only no right to liberty but no right to life: they must pay a landowner just for PERMISSION to provide themselves and their families with the necessities of life -- i.e., to exist. That is why the condition of the landless has been indistinguishable from the condition of slaves in EVERY SINGLE SOCIETY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD where landowning has been well established, but government has not intervened massively through minimum wage laws, labor standards laws, poverty relief programs, public education and health care, etc. to rescue the landless from enslavement by landowners.

[Truth To Power]

My point is that in this scenario, the backwards cultures are US and European.

What an eloquent confession of intellectual bankruptcy.

In SA, one of the necessary steps seems to be returning land to its original owners.

Even if land could rightly be owned (it can't), the original owners have been dead for centuries, and there is no way to identify who their rightful heirs might be. The "necessary step" you propose is simply pure racism: to take land purely on the basis of the owner's race and give it to others purely on the basis of their race.

But yes, racism against blacks is also part of the argument.

What about the actual racism in this case, which is against whites?

Trump, for example, repeated the myth that blacks are killing white farmers en masse.

https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south- ... afriforum/

For thise who are claiming that this is racism against whites:

Are all whites being targeted? No.

Oh, really?

"We have not called for the killing of white people — at least for now."
-- Julius Malema

Are all white farms being targeted? No.

"At least for now."

It seems to me that these farms are being targted because they are large farms owned by rich people. The fact that all the rich people are white is because of Apartheid.

Low-hanging fruit.

So, the people who are arguing that this is a racist act are confusing correlation with causation. They are not seizing the land because the owners are white.

Will ANY black-owned farm EVER be targeted, no matter how rich its owner?

They are seizing the land because the owners are rich, and the owners are rich because they profited from a racist system.

They profited from landowner privilege; racism had very little to do with it.

[Victoribus Spolia]

People have rights to what they would have if others did not deprive them of it -- mainly life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. We have a right to use land because we are naturally at liberty to use all land non-exclusively, as our hunter-gatherer and nomadic-herding ancestors did for millions of years. I realize you aren't on board with that account of human prehistory, but it's just an established empirical fact, sorry. If someone owns land, then others' liberty to use it has been removed. That may be just a tiny salami slice of their right to liberty, and no doubt it was tolerated at first on that basis. But as the salami slices start to add up into the thousands and millions, less and less of people's rights to liberty remain. If all the land suitable for making a living is someone's property, the landless have not only no right to liberty but no right to life: they must pay a landowner just for PERMISSION to provide themselves and their families with the necessities of life -- i.e., to exist. That is why the condition of the landless has been indistinguishable from the condition of slaves in EVERY SINGLE SOCIETY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD where landowning has been well established, but government has not intervened massively through minimum wage laws, labor standards laws, poverty relief programs, public education and health care, etc. to rescue the landless from enslavement by landowners.

I must have missed it.

so let me be more precise.

1. How does land-ownership (a form of property) necessarily result in the deprivation of life, liberty, and property (fruit of one's labors) in others? Is there a rational or logical principle you use to base this claim? Like an axiom of some sort?

2. What is wrong with not owning land in a landed society? Some people don't have the work ethic or the interest in owning their own land, of the 38% of Americans that don't own their own home, not all of them are in poverty, many of them choose to live in crowded places and have apartments, many are retired, many are bums that don't like to do their own work. Why are they inferior for making this decision when that decision was clearly not because they had no choice due to the landedness of others?

3. On Landwatch.com ALONE, there are nearly 675,000 listings of land for sale; where ownership is openly available. Likewise, the government of the United States owns 28% of all the available land in the United States; approximately 640 MILLION acres.

It seems that landlessness is not due to a lack of land available by sale, or availability in general. If each of the 38% of Americans that rent were landless against their will, and all were grown and single individuals (not families), simply appropriating the government claimed land of 640 MILLION acres would ALONE secure each landless individual roughly 6 acres of land each. You only need a 1/3 of an acre to be entirely self-sufficient, this not counting the land that is currently for sale that probably equals to at least half this much.

However, only about half those people are likely in poverty and of them, the majority are probably in families of 4; Thus, a more realistic number would likely be 20 acres per each family in poverty or more. Assuming their poverty was due because of being deprived of land.

So I guess I am wondering why you say that land-ownership is presently causing landlessness (which you say is equal to slavery)?

I am asking respectfully, so please answer respectfully. I want an explanation, not an attack.

4. How would land-use be different than land-ownership?

For instance, if I own a field of 2 acres for grazing cows, under you theory, this ownership deprives others of their life, liberty, and property.

However, if I wasn't owning it, but simply "using it", I would still be occupying the same 2 acres as such are requisite for my housing and grazing needs.

That being said; wherein, does the deprivation of others lie if not in the space I am occupying and using? That is, what about the owning part is the issue if the same amount of space is required in both instances?

I guess I am not understanding.

Thanks.

ALSO, if possible, could you make your post as readable as possible. Give a gist, I don't need a point by point response, just an answer to questions and explanation.

Your last post was great BTW. Thanks. Use it as a model.

[Deutschmania]

First here is sound background on the situation . https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-02/south-africa-s-land-problem-still-shadowed-by-apartheid Also , I agree with author of this opinion piece https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/sep/10/southafrica.agriculture that land reform would best be accomplished by means of a land value tax , so that the transition be both smooth and fair.

[Beren]

Well, I was trolling, of course.

Sure, making an analogy between Hungary and South Africa is just massive off-topic trolling in this thread indeed.

In the Hungarian case, they can be counted as invaders on some level, so some people should be denying your right to live there.

And who should do that? The Avars? Or the Slavs who became Hungarians?

And if they can't or just refuse to do so then you and Albert jump in for them?

I really don't care. I'm just interested in this idea of "who own's land" and can empty land have an owner by virtue of proximity of the land that is dwelled upon. It just doesn't make sense, really.

I really don't care about South Africa either and this is not the issue I meant to discuss here. Also, my response to Ter is the Hungarian government's stance and I know he appreciates them so much.

Whether which nation or people a piece of land belongs to depends on consensus and recognition, I guess. Boerish farmers are in trouble because it's their own (elected) government that doesn't recognise their right to their land, which is a basic problem indeed.

[Sivad]

I am using the common accepted definition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism

Colonialism is the policy of a foreign polity seeking to extend or retain its authority over other people or territories, generally with the aim of developing or exploiting them to the benefit of the colonizing country and of helping the colonies modernize in terms defined by the colonizers, especially in economics, religion, and health.

If you wish to reject the idea of colonialism, go ahead.

That's not the definition you gave.

I have no idea how you are going to make a decent analysis of SA or indigenous people in NA without discussing colonialism.

I'm definitely not going to compare the situation in SA to that of Natives in the US. That would be .

You do realise that your personal experience is influenced by your own biases, right?

I said I take my personal experience into account, not that my understanding is exclusively base on it.

It makes more sense to base your position on more than just personal experiences, and also look at academic sources, studies, articles in papers, etc.

Which is what I do, you're just being dishonest as usual.

If you wish to provide a source that shows that indigenous people and communities feel they are treated equally and everything is fine now, please present it.

Not all Natives feel they're victims of systemic discrimination, and the ones that do are either just ignorantly blaming the system for their own problems or mistakenly believe that the oppression they do experience is unique to their group or minority groups in general when really we're all taking the same abuse.

My point is that in this scenario, the backwards cultures are US and European.

Then your point is stupid.

[Pants-of-dog]

That's not the definition you gave.

Please quote where I used a different definition.

I'm definitely not going to compare the situation in SA to that of Natives in the US. That would be .

Why would it be a bad idea to look at how colonialism has helped create the present situation in SA, or NA for that matter?

I said I take my personal experience into account, not that my understanding is exclusively base on it.

Which is what I do, you're just being dishonest as usual.

Not all Natives feel they're victims of systemic discrimination, and the ones that do are either just ignorantly blaming the system for their own problems or mistakenly believe that the oppression they do experience is unique to their group or minority groups in general when really we're all taking the same abuse.

If you wish to provide a source that shows that indigenous people and communities feel they are treated equally and everything is fine now, please present it.

I would also welcome a similar source for SA black communities. Thanks.

Then your point is stupid.

You are the one who brought up the point about backwards cultures. If you think such points are stupid, then we both could benefit from this criticism.

[Alchemy]

At what point will your side be satisfied that "colonialism has ended"? Because from my experience of discussions about this subject, the word "never" comes up a hell of a lot.

For example, I'm told that since I'm white I'll "never" understand racism, for example, or that despite being the world's second largest economy and an emerging nuclear superpower, China still suffers from the legacy of the Opium Wars of the mid-19th century.

As for your questions: colonialism ended in South Africa when the country declared itself independent from the British Empire. It was no longer a colony, or a dominion, and became self-governing. Minority white rule ended in 1994 when the Apartheid government was toppled and Mandela was elected. Since then, the country has been under the uninterrupted rule of the ANC, typically with very large majorities in parliament.

There comes a point where questions about "when colonialism ended" become less about correcting historical injustice and more about using history as a pretext to demand submission, or justify the next naked power grab. After all, it's quite clear to the rest of us that the answer will always be never.

And of course, this is without mentioning the amusing fact that colonialism in North America is an "ongoing problem", but colonialism in your home country of Chile apparently gets a free pass. After all, the indigenous people of Chile didn't learn Spanish by magic, did they?

This shows an utterly hopeless grasp of South African history. At what point will your utterly daft side be satisfied in understanding that a mere 24 years ago Blacks weren’t allowed to own land, and worse, were illegally evicted from their land (aka their land was stolen from them).

Until you are prepared to acknowledge these facts, you will NEVER possess the intellectual wherewithal, let alone humility to rationally debate this due to your misplaced prejudice. You keep pretending as if Colonialism in South Africa ended centuries ago and at the flick of a switch 24 years ago, centuries of oppression and abuse suddenly and miraculously put everyone on a level playing field and the consequences of colonialism vanished overnight. Just how naive\immature\dishonest are you?

https://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/list-laws-land-dispossession-and-segregation



You are the quintessential poster boy for white privilege. If you cannot comprehend why any of the above continues to hamper black people today and countless generations, you will simply never get it, as it’s evident that your entire myopic worldview is defined based on positions of privilege afforded to you for all of these years as a white.

[danholo]

And who should do that? The Avars? Or the Slavs who became Hungarians?

Any type of anti-Colonialist who is intellectually honest.