This is a thought that I have been tackling for quite a while now, but in the event of a country or region undergoing decolonialization, how should settler populations, especially multigenerational populations, be handled?
For example in the example of Israel, once the nation is reestablished as a one state Palestine, what would happen to the settler population? Especially those that aren’t living or participating in illegal settlements or exploitation?
This question is complicated farther by multiple generations of people who were born in a location and have no ties to any other country or location. Those people don’t have anywhere to go and can’t be “sent back” to where they came from as they have no ties. For example if a person’s grand parents immigrated decades ago to a country as settlers, and then their children and then grandchildren were born and lived their whole lives in a location, what would you do with those grandchildren? You can’t just throw them back to the country their grandparents were from. This question is made even harder when the generations start spanning back much farther.
Another problem that I am running into is that many solutions including “leftist” ones essentially boil down to ethnic cleaning even if they do not say it outright. Or they completely ignore the question or resort to some fantasy scenario where the settlers magically disappear or all agree to move.
So how should these populations and people be handled?
Palestine was recent enough to where there are still documents of Palestinian ownership over homes and land, setup an investigative body to settle who owns what. Everything else gets claimed by the Palestinian state and redistributed democratically. Public housing will need to be built all over and there’s no reason why settlers can’t be relocated to new housing. The issue is largely around property and not existence.
Take Hawaii as an example, look at this: https://realhawaii.co/blog/who-owns-hawaii
Most of the land in Hawaii is owned by the state and federal governments, and a bunch of monopoly family farms. This should be immediately handed over to the Hawaiian nation. How are the settlers employed, who owns their workplaces? These are answerable questions.
Understandable. These seem like reasonable assumptions and plans. Especially when opposed to the other things I’ve heard which can be described as delusional at best and downright fascistic at worst.
How would you consider the issue of the personal property of settlers? In regards to homes for example? I can fully agree with the seizing of exploitative uses of land such as massive farms, property owned by landlords, and government based land; but how would you approach personal housing or very small businesses (of a reasonable scale, so I am not referring to mansions or multimillion dollar business ventures).
Also as an aside, if they were given a choice to decide for themselves; would you believe that Hawaii would be better as an independent nation, or as an integrated socialist republic in a larger US union state? Much like how the Soviet Union incorporated lands and peoples colonized by the Empire into republics in the Union.
We tend to consider homes to be personal property, but to be honest, land, including single family homes, should be treated differently from cars, pets, TVs, computers, diaries etc.
The whole issue of Settler Colonialism is that land was confiscated and turned into property of individuals, this is what we need to de-Colonize. Homesteads and their suburban imitation will be de-colonized, mostly through the form of de-carbonization. Homestead and suburban lifestyles are horrific wastes of energy. Every human deserves a home, but there is no contradiction in moving them to new housing, especially if their old housing is environmentally destructive. Small businesses should probably remain until production and distribution is sufficiently planned to abundance, while transitioning the over time into the public economy (taking experience from China and Vietnam’s socialist market economies). In the book Socialist Reconstruction, they outline a plan to incentivize independent farms to transition into a Socialist model voluntarily, by making certain economic guarantees if they participate in reconstruction.
I’ve been brainstorming this problem for a while, to summarize my current view I think the former territories of the USA constitute an economy that effects the hundreds of millions of people, Settler, Indigenous, Immigrant, or oppressed peoples (Africans, Latinos). The people dependent on this economy/society, should organize the reconstruction of this economy together, whether they rebuild in such a way to increase independence and break up the former territories or not. I don’t think it’s fair for the Hawaiian nation to remove and clean up America’s military occupation themselves, they’ll need help and the other territories of the former USA should assist. In any case, we’ll all need to work together, whether our goal is eventual separation or not.
The colonial borders should be immediately removed. The Blackfoot nation is split between the US and Canada, there’s no reason to maintain that separation. Similarly with the NW Coast peoples of AK, BC, WA, and OR, there’s no reason for them to be cut off from their historical community due to colonial borders.
Lastly in my view, equality between individuals cannot be guaranteed in the lower phases of Socialism. I think we should instead focus on equality between nations, where the Settler nation constitutes a majority (like the US). As in, Hawaiians as a nation should be at least equal to the Settlers, because equality of individuals cannot be guaranteed when the colonized are outnumbered. In the case of Palestine, where the Israelis are the minority, the Israelis could be incorporated into the state of Palestine, but it should be up to the Palestinian nation to choose whether they recognize Israelis as a nation or a minority within Palestine.
I do wish to firstly apologize, as I was a bit vague with my descriptions of housing. I fully agree with the ultimate removal of the western suburban model, and I was including all types, locations, and sizes of housing under my definition. So urban apartments all the way to rural homesteads.
I agree almost entirely with your reasoning regarding housing, however I will offer some minor pushback and advocate for not the complete destruction of the suburb model, but for a massive reduction in its size, and replacement of single family units with large multi purpose dwellings in the style of Soviet housing planning. These “suburbs” would include vital businesses such as pharmacies and grocery incorporated into the buildings so they are within walking range, and for reaching the city they can also be serviced though the use of short-medium range public transportation such as trams, buses, and monorail systems. This would act to reduce significantly the environmental impact of the suburbs while reducing urban congestion and the negative effects of urban sprawl.
I also fully agree with your sentiment of an organized intersectional rebuilding in a newly socialized society.
I also agree with the removal of colonial borders, and I while I don’t believe in a “balkanization” there still needs to be an immense reorganization of the current US state system.
I will however push back slightly on your analysis of equality of individuals, as while there should be significant righting of historical wrongs towards colonized groups, that is not the only distinction that should be taken in mind.
The reason why I emphasize nations over individuals is because the primary contradiction in the world is Colonialism, which is by Leninist definition, one nation dominating another. Undoing this contradiction requires equality between nations in the first phases, while later moving to equality between individuals. This is much in the same analysis as equality of individuals from the lower phase of socialism to the higher phase.
It’s incorrect to believe that the Colonial contradiction is solely enforced by the US government. Colonization occurred in the “private” or “civic” spheres of society, individual or small bands of settlers killing and occupying. Defeating the Colonial state is only defeating the most organized element of the Colonial society, it is only the beginning of decolonization. Colonial domination will still occur if we immediately embrace equality between individuals, why can I say this? Because that is the current structure of the USA, nominal democracy allows the Settler system to reinforce itself under the guise of “freedom” between individuals, while oppression is primarily based on nationality, race.
The question of equality between individuals is dependent on the equality of nations, individuals cannot be equal if their nations are not equal. The Plurinational constitution of Bolivia is an example of a new foundation of society based on equality between nations.