[Pants-of-dog]

I have an aversion to your ludicrous dishonesty but I'm not averse to discussing the legacy of colonialism.

You refused to discuss colonialism when you claimed that I was using some weird definition. When I clarified which definition I was using (i.e, the Wikipedia one), you stopped discussing it entirely.

When I pointed out how colonialism affects SA and NA, you openly stated you were not going to co pare the two. Since the main point of comparison between these two is colonialism, the logical inference is that you do not want to discuss colonialism.

Add these points together, and it certainly seems like you are avoiding the topic.

But if I am incorrect and you would like to discuss colonialism, please explain how and when colonialism ended in SA, or NA if you prefer.

[Sivad]

You refused to discuss colonialism when you claimed that I was using some weird definition. When I clarified which definition I was using (i.e, the Wikipedia one), you stopped discussing it entirely.

When I pointed out how colonialism affects SA and NA, you openly stated you were not going to co pare the two. Since the main point of comparison between these two is colonialism, the logical inference is that you do not want to discuss colonialism.

That's not even close to how that exchange went. You made up some retarded definition of colonialism, I called bullshit, and then you posted the accepted definition and pretended that was the definition you gave. Like I said, ludicrous.

But if I am incorrect and you would like to discuss colonialism, please explain how and when colonialism ended in SA, or NA if you prefer.

Natives have had full civil rights in the US for over half a century. If you want to define colonialism as just any economic or civil oppression then I guess we're all victims of colonialism. Many of us resent this bullshit system that's been imposed on us, we don't agree with it and don't want it, the Natives aren't a special case.

[Beren]

It's time that Western society stopped giving foreign aid to S.A & spread some in the direction of Zimbabwe-conditionally.

Well, Zimbabwe went shit under Mugabe, however, South Africa would need its own Mugabe first to go that way, I guess.

As to Western reaction:

I wonder if there will be some action too.

[Pants-of-dog]

That's not even close to how that exchange went. You made up some retarded definition of colonialism, I called bullshit, and then you posted the accepted definition and pretended that was the definition you gave. Like I said, ludicrous.

Then please show where I used a different definition. Thanks.

Natives have had full civil rights in the US for over half a century. If you want to define colonialism as just any economic or civil oppression then I guess we're all victims of colonialism. Many of us resent this bullshit system that's been imposed on us, we don't agree with it and don't want it, the Natives aren't a special case.

I am using the Wikipedia definition. Please tell me exactly when SA or Canada or the USA stopped being colonial.

Again:

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.

As far as I can tell, the USA (and Canada and SA) 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.

[Sivad]

As far as I can tell, the USA (and Canada and SA) is a foreign polity

Not a foreign polity. Native Tribes are "domestic dependent nations" with limited self-government and the federal government has title(in trust) to all tribal lands.

seeking to extend or retain its authority over other people or territories

It's asserting authority over its national territory, not other territories. And all Natives are full US citizens so it's not "over other people" either.

If you're making a technical legal argument then you're wrong. If you're arguing a general principle then it's just trivial.

[Pants-of-dog]

Not a foreign polity. Native Tribes are "domestic dependent nations" with limited self-government and the federal government has title(in trust) to all tribal lands.

So, they are separate nations. Indigenous nations just happen to be foreign nations within the USA and Canada.

And the phrases “dependent” and “the federal government has title(in trust) to all tribal lands” seem to corroborate my claim.

It's asserting authority over its national territory, not other territories. And all Natives are full US citizens so it's not "over other people" either.

The US and Canada are asserting authority over the national territories of indigenous nations. This is supported by the text you just cited: “the federal government has title(in trust) to all tribal lands”.

The fact that indigenous people happen to have citizenship is irrelevant. Again, we are not discussing the relationship between a government of a nation and a citizen of that nation. Instead, we are discussing the relationship between two or more nations.

If we are looking at the relationship between Canada and the Cree, it does not matter if Canada treats Mary Pitawanakwat as a full citizen as long as Canada is still laying claim to Cree territories and is using the land and resources to entich Canada and not the Cree.

If you're making a technical legal argument then you're wrong. If you're arguing a general principle then it's just trivial.

If I am wrong, please show me how.

Whether or not you consider this trivial probably depends on how much it actually affects your life. So, while I assume that it does not affect your life very much, it does affect the lives of indigenous people, and they might find it less trivial.

Also, you never answered my question as to when the USA or Canada or SA stopped being colonial.

[Truth To Power]

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?

It removes everyone else's liberty to use the land, depriving them of what they would otherwise have. You can take it as an axiom of my system that people have rights to what they would have if others did not deprive them of it. I can justify that axiom, but I think it's beyond the scope of this discussion.

Is there a rational or logical principle you use to base this claim? Like an axiom of some sort?

It's a physical fact: the land would otherwise be available for everyone else to use non-exclusively.

2. What is wrong with not owning land in a landed society?

It makes you effectively a second-class citizen. Everyone is a victim of landowning -- i.e., when land is owned, we all lose our liberty to use it -- but those who own land also participate in the crime as perpetrators. The landless are just pure victims.

Some people don't have the work ethic or the interest in owning their own land,

But everyone USES -- HAS to use -- land. Landed property means they have to pay a landowner for permission just to exist.

of the 38% of Americans that don't own their own home, not all of them are in poverty,

So what? In ancient Rome, some slaves were wealthy. The fact that a strong man might be able to run while carrying another man on his back does not mean the other fellow is not a burden, or that those who can't run while carrying someone else on their back are somehow to blame for being so slow.

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.

The bums who don't like to do their own work are often landowners.

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?

They are inferior because they are systematically robbed, and do not get any of the loot. The matter of choice is irrelevant. The victim of a protection racket also has a choice.

3. On Landwatch.com ALONE, there are nearly 675,000 listings of land for sale; where ownership is openly available.

The inevitable resort to absurdity. It is self-evidently not openly available. You have to pay for it. You could with equal "logic" claim that slaves' liberty was openly available to them: all they had to do was pay their owners for it.

Likewise, the government of the United States owns 28% of all the available land in the United States; approximately 640 MILLION acres.

Now you are pretending that being deprived of the liberty to use good, fertile land that provides an economic advantage to its user is the same as being deprived of access to desert, mountainside, swamp land, or land on Mars.

It seems that landlessness is not due to a lack of land available by sale, or availability in general.

<sigh> If I point out that someone upstream is diverting all the water I need for my farm, do you really think it is responsive to point out that the sea is full of water?

If each of the 38% of Americans that rent were landless against their will,

They are all 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.

As above. Six acres of desert or mountainside is not compensation for being deprived of access to the economically advantageous locations.

You only need a 1/3 of an acre to be entirely self-sufficient,

In a good enough location.

this not counting the land that is currently for sale that probably equals to at least half this much.

As above. The fact that a slave can pay the owner of his right to liberty for permission to exercise it does not mean he is free.

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.

If you see someone who can't carry someone else on their back, there might be many reasons for it; but in every case, they would be better off not having to carry someone else on their back.

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

It's self-evident. Landownership EXISTS to deprive others of the advantageous land. That is its sole function.

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

I've done my best.

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

I assume you mean exclusive use. That could be obtained without fault by making just compensation to those excluded. Ownership would mean the extinction of everyone else's liberty rights without compensation.

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.

Their liberty to use that land. If all the rest of the good land is likewise owned, then they have to pay a landowner just for permission to live.

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.

It doesn't matter what you are doing with it: you are depriving everyone else of it.

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?

Yes, the deprivation occurs in either case. Ownership just codifies it and enlists government's help in preventing the victims from resisting.

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.

I don't think clarity is served by just giving the gist, and I am all about clarity.

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

If you ask one question, I'll give one response. If you make a comment I consider false and pertinent, I'll refute it. That's how I roll, sorry.

[Drlee]

Sorry POD. You can't have it both ways.

Either NA are full citizens, which you acknowledge, or they are "other nations" which you also assert. You are enamored with the term "colonial" but use it poorly.

Calling Native American Tribes "nations" does not mean they are another country. It is a somewhat more politically acceptable term for Tribe. We often use the term "people" as well. At the end of the day we are articulating a distinction without a difference.

Native Americans within the US have a tribal identity and this identity is governed by treaty and US law. Treaty in name only. It is really an agreement between the USG and the tribe. Nevertheless these native Americans have rights not granted other citizens such as the possibility of universal health care and some protection from local and state governments.

This is a good thing because their survival as assimilated societies depends on it. Have they been colonized? No. You can't colonize your own territory. Have they been granted special recognition? Yes. You asked:

Please tell me exactly when SA or Canada or the USA stopped being colonial.

Bad question. What do you mean by it? When did the (US) stop colonizing other places? No nation ever stops colonizing other places. Some simply do not have the opportunity. Did the US colonize Japan at the end of WWII? We occupied it. We built its government in our own image. We established ourselves as a major trading partner. But it would be wrong to call Japan a US colony.

When the Great Britain stop colonizing the US? When we kicked their butts out. When did we stop colonizing native American tribes? When the land upon which they lived became part of the US and they became citizens.

Do settlers occupying land automatically become colonizers? No. Otherwise one would have to conclude that Mexico is colonizing the US.

Colonies are political extensions of an absentee government. There are no such entities in the US or Canada. So your use of the word is wrong. You like wiki:

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.

The governments of Canad and the US with regards to Native American tribes inside their respective borders are NOT "foreign polities". As I said before. The fact is that the US never "colonized" native Americans. Ever. The British did. The French did. But we didn't. Our relationships have always been based upon the notion that we both occupy states and territories of the United States of America or Canada.

[Sivad]

So, they are separate nations.

They're sub-national entities with quasi-autonomy.

And the phrases “dependent” and “the federal government has title(in trust) to all tribal lands” seem to corroborate my claim.

How?

The fact that indigenous people happen to have citizenship is irrelevant.

Why?

Again, we are not discussing the relationship between a government of a nation and a citizen of that nation. Instead, we are discussing the relationship between two or more nations.

They're not recognized as nations under domestic or international law.

If we are looking at the relationship between Canada and the Cree, it does not matter if Canada treats Mary Pitawanakwat as a full citizen as long as Canada is still laying claim to Cree territories and is using the land and resources to entich Canada and not the Cree.

It's not Cree land, it's the Crown's land held in trust for the Cree.

Whether or not you consider this trivial probably depends on how much it actually affects your life. So, while I assume that it does not affect your life very much, it does affect the lives of indigenous people, and they might find it less trivial.

It does affect my life, I'm just as stuck living under this corrupt system as the Natives are. I just don't want to hear Natives bitching about their sovereignty like they're any more hard done by than the rest of us.

Also, you never answered my question as to when the USA or Canada or SA stopped being colonial.

I did answer it, it ended when full and equal citizenship was established.

[Alchemy]

That's not even close to how that exchange went. You made up some retarded definition of colonialism, I called bullshit, and then you posted the accepted definition and pretended that was the definition you gave. Like I said, ludicrous.



Natives have had full civil rights in the US for over half a century. If you want to define colonialism as just any economic or civil oppression then I guess we're all victims of colonialism. Many of us resent this bullshit system that's been imposed on us, we don't agree with it and don't want it, the Natives aren't a special case.

Yay, natives have had civil rights for a century therefore all is right with the world, says the ignorant and arrogant guy who has ALWAYS had his rights and civil liberties, hence why he doesn’t understand why others who have only recently attained them care about them so much and how your fucking literal centuries of privilege categorically makes your ignorant rant above wrong.

Try again sir..

[Alchemy]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1032454567152246785
The only western leader to speak out about this.

The culmination of Fox News propaganda and an Idiot President.

[youtube]

[/youtube]

[Sivad]

Yay, natives have had civil rights for a century therefore all is right with the world, says the ignorant and arrogant guy

I never said that.

who has ALWAYS had his rights and civil liberties,

Every Native my age has as well. Every Native my father's age has ALWAYS had their rights and civil liberties.

hence why he doesn’t understand why others who have only recently attained them care about them so much and how your fucking literal centuries of privilege categorically makes your ignorant rant above wrong.

My centuries of privilege? I'm not nearly that old. And I come from working class stock so there's no "literal centuries of privilege" there either. There's centuries of exploitation, disenfranchisement, oppression, and abuse, but not much privilege. There's even a couple genocides in my cultural heritage.

[Albert]

@Alchemy
Yea okay, "right wing conspiracy theory", way to try to bury this under the rug. It is way more telling that they try to sweep this under the rug then speak openly about it.

It is quite ironic, mass media tries to label something as a conspiracy while conspiring to cover up the events in SA.

[Alchemy]

@Alchemy
Yea okay, "right wing conspiracy theory", way to try to bury this under the rug. It is way more telling that they try to sweep this under the rug then speak openly about it.

It is quite ironic, mass media tries to label something as a conspiracy while conspiring to cover up the events in SA.

Oh okay, everyone is wrong, including me a South African, and fox is right lol. We are sweeping it under a rug. You’re right, as you snuggle up in your comforting blanket of Fox News propaganda and Trump tweets for “truth” on the matter..

Jesus..lol

[Alchemy]

Every Native my age has as well. Every Native my father's age has ALWAYS had their rights and civil liberties.



My centuries of privilege? I'm not nearly that old. And I come from working class stock so there's no "literal centuries of privilege" there either. There's centuries of exploitation, disenfranchisement, oppression, and abuse, but not much privilege. There's even a couple genocides in my cultural heritage.

You’ve missed the proverbial boat Im afraid. Your freedoms and civil liberties have been a privilege for you and your ilk for centuries since birth. You’ve been privileged in ways it would be churlish to ignore, sometimes it pays to shut up and listen. Being born with white skin in America affords people certain unearned privileges in life that people of other skin colors simply are not afforded. You benefited from this. Substituting class for race, as you have ignorantly done above, doesn’t make you right sir.

Recognizing privilege simply means being aware that some people have to work much harder just to experience the things that you and your ilk take for granted. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Albert]

Oh okay, everyone is wrong, including me a South African, and fox is right lol. We are sweeping it under a rug. You’re right, as you snuggle up in your comforting blanket of Fox News propaganda and Trump tweets for “truth” on the matter..

Jesus..lol

SA government itself stated that it plans to amend the constitution in order to confiscate land from white farmers.

[Alchemy]

SA government itself stated that it plans to amend the confiscate to confiscate land from white farmers.

No the SA government did NOT say that. This is the second Thread you are spinning up on South Africa based on fabricated shit (Your Fox News-Esque penchant for propaganda is truly starting to show). Prove me wrong, please cite a credible source, in the South African governments own words to support your stupid claim “SA government itself stated that it plans to amend the confiscate to confiscate land from white farmers”

Please post your proof..Right now..

[Albert]

WHAT HAS THE ANC DONE?
Spurred by the rise of the far-left Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), the African National Congress (ANC) adopted a resolution in December to redistribute land to black South Africans without compensation. Parliament then backed an EFF motion last month seeking to change the constitution to allow for this. A committee will report back to the chamber by Aug. 30.

Together, the ANC, the EFF and other small opposition parties could muster the two-thirds majority needed for a constitutional change, but it is not clear when, or if, a vote will take place.

[Alchemy]

From that article, where the fuck does it say that The South African government is stripping farms from all white South African farmers as per your claims? Where?

Backup your claims, right now. “SA government itself stated that it plans to amend the confiscate to confiscate land from white farmers”

[Red_Army]

This is just so funny because you dumb fucks want to do exactly the same thing in Europe and North America

Keep being you conservatives! I never have to question the validity of my politics with your persistent contradiction/bald-faced evil.

@Albert is right @Alchemy, you just don't know the situation in your country because of "Trump Derangement Syndrome"

Man his ineptitude is reaching heights beyond what I imagined possible. It's quite the spectacle.