Does Land Back view white people as settlers? If so why? is it that they’re descendants of settlers so them existing is a remnant of that, or only those who uphold the ideas that “America” and “Canada” exist, or something else entirely?

White people are settlers, yes. Its not just this simple tho, because of a lot of reasons I cannot afford the time too but It is true materially and culturally that white people are settlers. Many white people own land that goes back to land grabs and handouts during conquest and allotment. Land that was directly stolen and occasionally even has sacred sites. This is ongoing. There are still examples of land being stolen from Native children and other crimes.

It should be noted that this is not meant as a moral statement. I am a settler, although I have no land of my own, my family does, and they certainly taught me settler politics and thinking.

Now is Land Back a movement for ALL of the land to be returned to the different indigenous nations? If the notion is white people are intrinsically settlers, what do they want to do with them? If the notion is that it is just the STATE that’s a settler state, does the majority of white people in these nations dillude them being Indigenous?

Land Back is a platitude. Its not some robust, well defined goal. This is both a strength and a weakness. Allow me to explain.

Land Back has different meanings for different Tribes, individuals, times, and places. Usually, it starts with Treaty Lands which were established via treaty in the 19th century. Native Nations have a legal right to this land according to settler constitutional law, but the settler state has historically not held up its own laws on this or outright failed to ratify the treaty in DC while Indigenous peoples were forced into concentration camps. So there are legal battles about Treaties that make up a big part of Land Back. This is a huge can of worms itself because it means that it is legally true than some entire major cities are on Native land yet Native institutions have no say in what goes on. Corporate lawyers that work for Exxon for example, end up arguing on behalf of the state that it would cause chaos to recognize constitutional legal processes and sometimes it works but there have been examples of legal jurisdictions being changed due to these court battles over treaties.

Sacred sites are also a part of it. Usually, Tribes are unable to get these sites protected unless they try to protect them from an environmental perspective, or if they can purchase them outright.

At the end of the day I think Land Back points toward the death of Amerika. It is not merely about sacred sites and treaties, it is an eternal political struggle against an occupier that has destroyed the landscape and has caused such damage to the global ecosystem that extinction is looming. Land Back is about the survival of Indigenous people first and foremost. But it can only lead to full decolonization if successful. So yes, all land back.

Now back to white people. Ive never heard anyone sincerely say white people have to be expelled. In fact it is usually detractors that say this. Of course there will be some violence. Bill Gates and Ted Turner own a fucking shit ton of Native land and frankly I dont care if they lose every single acre. Same for other fat cats and reactionaries. But remember, Land Back is about survival, not about evoking a deadly reaction from powerful settlers, vigilantes, or the state, so its very political ad it is driven by contradiction.

Personally, I think that undermining the settler state and the conditions of colonialism will end up abolishing whiteness and settler sensibilities over time. Indigenaity and the settler quality are a unity and struggle of opposites that is born of colonialism, so challenging colonial foundations is what I find to be an intuitive way forward.

There is a lot of trauma around the “am I Indigenous” question among Indigenous people due to colonial violence, so of course having a ton of white settlers around is confusing from an identity stand point. But there are plenty of Tribal institutions with members and maintained history and culture. The question to me is more how should us white communists fighting for decolonization see ourselves. I see myself based on a future id like to see, one without the American colonial project holding together a global empire. Not on some sense of shared history among settlers which imo PatSocs utilize. This, along with self criticism and centering Tribal leadership can undermine the superstructural parts of whiteness too. We need to build a system that can reproduce itself as it builds towards communism and so we cant rely on settler sensibilities, naratives or structures. Basically, North America needs to again be indigenized on the terms of Indigenous people and institutions in order to escape colonial development and discourse, and enter a situation where contradictions lead towards classless society instead of fascist reactions.

Now when “America” and “Canada” first colonized there wasn’t a proletariat, and it was all settlers. Now as throughout time, the majority of the populations, are wage earners.

The proletariat is that wretched underclass of workers that is inherently revolutionary due to internal contradictions within capitalism. You can be a wage earning worker and not have revolutionary quality and this is typically the case in the US and Europe. There has always been a working class of settlers and slaves. But which are revolutionary? Not the settlers. There are material reasons for this. It is not a mere moral statement.

So is it fair to call white people settlers in a STATE apparatus formed centuries ago, that enslaves them?

Yes. They are not slaves. They are paid more than their counterparts throught the exploitation of the global proletariat and the theft of land.

There is class conflict in colonial discourse but it is the petite bourgeoisie/labir aristocracy (settlers) vs the huate bourgeoisie (finance, MIC, oil). Of course the haute bourgeoisie is primarily calling the shots and this sometimes pisses off the petite bourgeoisie but historically they have used settlers as an army/occupation force and this has always given settlers political power within the state. People will say this is changing and that things are getting worse for the settlers. They usually leave out its getting worse for most of the periphery too. The huate bourgeoisie need a labor aristocracy for their empire to stand. Labor aristocracy and settler quality is a feature of imperialism that isnt dying out just because this generation cant afford a house as easily as their dad did.

Is it Anti Marxist to return to the way things were, discounting the new conditions formed for all working people? Is there any historical example of decolonizing a Settler State? If white people are born on native land, are they apart of that indigenous nation? Is this an issues of Nationhood and borders in general, or the specific parts of a settler state?

My answer is that I think its dialectical. Sublation of the current arrangement is the way forward. But this is not a matter of policy, it is a matter of contradictions developing the course of history. We should not imagine some ideal and then dogmaticly try to work towards that. We should embrace contradiction. That being said, much of settler sensibility is counter revolutionary, so something has to give on that front. And people doubling down on settler notions is toxic to the development of communism. There needs to be a process of existential death and rebirth alongside undermining capitalism itself.

I do think that by seeking to “return to the way things were” does have some merrit tho. Because we need to develop from a plave that is not baked in colonialism. This has a lot of implications, but basically, Id rather push towards classless society from within the contradictions of Native class systems and lifeways. This is why i typically say America needs two revolutions in other posts.

White people are not part of the Indigenous nation, definitely not just by location. Its not as simple as borders. Indigenous communities are defined by relations. This is a difficult topic to get into because im white and I dont really want to speak to how any Indigenous nation defines itself and I am very uncomfortable saying that white people of today should pursue joining a Tribe or something. White people already do this and it is destructive.

Hopefully this is somewhat helpful in explaining myself but it is a lot to answer.

Does Land Back view white people as settlers?

Not just. It views EVERYONE that came to the Americas through European conquest as settlers. That includes slaves and subsequent waves of immigrants.

If so why?

“Decolonization is not a Metaphor” gives a strong analysis of why. https://clas.osu.edu/sites/clas.osu.edu/files/Tuck and Yang 2012 Decolonization is not a metaphor.pdf

In summary, it’s because settler colonialism is not a historical event, it is a living system that at its core is a system with the function of oppressing indigenous people through physical, economic, political, social, cultural, religious, and other means. Each non-white person that owns a house or rents from a landlord is participating in the settler colony, whether they want to or not, because their survival interests rely on it. Settler colonies convert land into property as part of their processes. While property exists, settlerism exists, while non-indigenous people own and interact with property, they are settlers active participating in the settler system.

Now is Land Back a movement for ALL of the land to be returned to the different indigenous nations?

Land Back is a movement to invert the power hierarchy and provide sovereignty of all colonized land to the indigenous people who are today oppressed. The indigenous peoples will use that sovereignty as they see fit. Inevitably, all settlers will experience at minimum transitional oppression as they will lose their way of life in part or in full. Land Back is not predicated on settlers feeling comfortable with whatever the outcomes are.

If the notion is white people are intrinsically settlers, what do they want to do with them?

This is idealism and not part of the Land Back analysis. White people don’t exist.

If the notion is that it is just the STATE that’s a settler state, does the majority of white people in these nations dillude them being Indigenous?

It’s not the state, it’s the society. If the state were to change its form, it would still be a settler state. It can be nothing but. The state cannot become indigenous. The state can only cede sovereignty.

Now when “America” and “Canada” first colonized there wasn’t a proletariat, and it was all settlers. Now as throughout time, the majority of the populations, are wage earners.

So is it fair to call white people settlers in a STATE apparatus formed centuries ago, that enslaves them?

We’re not talking about ideals like fairness. We’re talking about the material analysis of society. It does not matter that peasants became proletarians. What matters is that the interests of the peasants and the proletarians are incommensurable with the interests of the indigenous people who are oppressed by the society that is perpetuated by the peasants and the proles. It’s not the state that is oppressive, the state is merely a component of the violently oppressive society that every day harms the indigenous people of Turtle Island. That the people are enslaved to the system makes no difference because returning sovereignty to the indigenous people harms those who are enslaved as much as it harms those who are not enslaved.

Is it Anti Marxist to return to the way things were

Not inherently, no. You’d have to make the case.

discounting the new conditions formed for all working people

This statement erases the indigenous peoples completely. It is the single most clarion example of the problem. 8% of indigenous people in the US can speak their own language. They are living through their own genocide. The new conditions that you speak of forming are new conditions only for the settlers. The conditions that formed for the indigenous are those of mass slaughter, destruction of autonomy, destruction land. It is disingenuous to call the slaughter of every single buffalo on the plains a “new condition formed for all working people”. It is disingenuous to call the destruction of clean water for the creation of oil pipelines a “new condition formed for all working people”.

Is there any historical example of decolonizing a Settler State?

Not that I’m aware of.

If white people are born on native land, are they apart of that indigenous nation?

It could be said that I’ve answered this above. Read Tuck and Yang (above). They go into detail about how many of the white people that claim “we all have Indian blood in us from some ancestor somewhere” is quite literally the claim to innocence based on the fact that indigenous women were raped and their children were forcibly taken from them and integrated into settler society.

Is this an issues of Nationhood and borders in general, or the specific parts of a settler state?

It is an issue of contradictions inherent in systems of oppression. The idea of nationhood and borders arises from understanding the contradiction inherent in a society founded on a systemic form of genocide, mass murder, destruction of land, destruction of biodiversity, and oppression that is intrinsic in the system’s functioning, that cohabitates the same historical processes that the society inhabits, and continues every moment that the society exists.