Looking forward to some great insights from the Ayn Rand Institute
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
137 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15914 readers
12 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
" [Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent." - Ayn Rand, West Point lecture 1974
To be clear, Indigenous peoples did have property rights in their own legal codes and did work the land, so she's even wrong on the basics here, and even if they didn't would not justify genocide.
“The memorandum noted that the Arabs had done nothing for centuries to develop the land and thus had forfeited their rights to the Jews, who, with their skill, energy and resources, had already demonstrated their capacity for developing Palestine and making it prosper. Moreover, it was asserted that the Arabs of Palestine were not ready for self-government in view of widespread illiteracy and lack of education. German interests and aims in Palestine were defined as primarily economic in nature; the Jews, not the Arabs, were considered most capable of creating conditions in Palestine conducive to those interests and aims.”
many such cases
It wouldn't take much for techbros to come up with a sort of "eminent domain" for bazinga, where people could be evicted from their homes in the imperial core if some techbro promised to bring "skill, energy, and resources" to that location.
They're already doing that, to San Francisco
Yeeeeeep.
BRB evicting Jeff bozos from his house because I didn't think he was maximising his land use
What is this a quote from?
The Third Reich and the Palestine Question by Francis Nicosia. I think re: German support for Zionist settlement in the 1920s
Whenever Gil Scott-Heron's "Whitey On The Moon" poem was posted on Youtube, there was a very good chance in the comments that some cryptofascist would declare that black people would "still be living in mud huts" if they hadn't received the blessing of enslavement and tied that to more recent history as a wailing terror that magical space futures will be denied if social justice isn't wiped out as a concept.
I'd far rather live as equals on earth than have slaves in space
Fuck the troops
Fuckhead couldn't even stay consistent; it was always a grift for her.
I've seen plenty of takes that are just this from zionists the last couple of weeks. It is just the same shit over and over with settler colonialists.
me when i'm a secular natural rights "anarchist": "um but the state didn't say it was theirs?"
is there any reading you'd recommend on pre-colonial conceptions of indigenous property rights? since grade school i was always lead to believe that native americans didn't have land ownership.
Graeber likes talking about the topic, see both Debt: The First 5000 Years and The Dawn of Everything. I'm sure there's more indigenous sources.
An opening point would be that "native american" is a very broad category. Many different cultures with different lifestyles and legal codes. Hierarchies and morals. They have effectively been homogenised (in the eyes of their colonisers) by their common oppression and conquest.
Maybe not 100% what you're looking for, but probably covering a lot of the same territory - check out Theft Is Property! by Robert Nichols.
Even if they didn't, that argument would only hold up until the very first treaty signed between colonizers and indigenous peoples. 99% of the story of colonization isn't people showing up to uncontacted tribes, it's settlers breaking their agreements with contacted ones.