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?
In reality, these people have zero standing. If they are displaced and the colonizer nations won’t take them back, it won’t be much different than the refugee situations we have been managing for a century. The decolonizers do not need to solve this problem.
Removed by mod
I mean, it’s the settlers who did the ethnic cleansing. This would merely be displacement.
It’s not the problem of the decolonizers because they are literally solving the problem of colonization. They do not have an obligation to protect themselves and also to protect their oppressors. This would be like black people having the obligation to educate white people about racism. It’s the white people that have the obligation.
If the decolonizers assume responsibility, it will be for the nation they create and to the restoration of justice. If that means displacement of colonists, on what grounds do colonists demand anything?
You say there’s no free pass, but the colonizers have had a free pass for 600 years. Why is accountability suddenly a thing. And why does that accountability only apply to the oppressed? Why don’t you take that attitude and direct at the European nations that birthed the colonies. After all, your starting assumption is that the Europeans are taking no refugees from the colonies because they are not accountable to them. That sounds a lot like you just shifting the burden onto the oppressed, which is exactly what has been done since colonizing began.
I am telling you with a straight face that the colonists have no claims. You assume Europeans will not accept refugees. Well, that’s Europe’s doing. Are you telling me with a straight face that the oppressed should continue to foot the bill for white settler oppression when your foundational premise is that not even Europe would lift a finger to help?
Do you not see why this is massively problematic?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I very sorry but reading over your replies to myself and other people in this thread, you are arguing in horrifying poor faith, your views are disgusting, and you are delusional.
I’m sorry. I won’t be replying to you anymore. Have a good day.
You are misusing the concept of bad faith argument, your “views” are congruent with colonialist chauvinism, and the delusion here is that “white people who live in former colonies today did nothing wrong because they didn’t personally kill any one”.
The fact that you won’t be replying to me anymore is a shame for you. Read Tuck and Yang, study AIM and Red Power, and good luck breaking through your BS.
What would happen if Europe decides not to take their settlers back in your view? Seeing as the indigenous population doesn’t have to “solve this problem”.
I think it’s pretty clear from history what would happen.
That’s not really an answer 😅 what would be your solution materially? Would they be forcibly moved back to the coast and then live in refugee camps until they get to leave? Would they be hunted down to the last? Would they be sent to live in remote towns?
You’re asking for a pretty thorough analysis from a non-indigenous person. Looking at history, the US is going to end up in a refugee situation no matter what. The water is running out in the Southwest. There are cities of millions living in the middle of the desert where no indigenous people ever chose to live due to it being unsuitable for life. Those millions are going to be displaced as soon as the water runs out. What’s going to happen with them? They’re going to where there’s water, and they are going to go before there’s sufficient housing for them. According to history, that means they’re living in temporary encampments. No one needs to force them to move in this case, they’ll die otherwise.
But then you’ve got people who live in places that do have enough water, but their living situation depends on other resources. An indigenous nation has no responsibility to maintain those supply chains if they are antithetical to their interests. I’m thinking primarily of extractive industries and their wells and their pipelines, but there are other things like electricity, climate control, transportation, etc, and each of these things is not guaranteed. Any aspect of life that people deem critical could disappear under indigenous sovereignty based on their national interests. Again, in this situation you’ll end up with mass displacements and lack of infrastructure to manage them, and again, historically that means people living in temporary encampments.
The problem with these things, of course, is that you’ve got an immovable object and inexorable force. On the one side you have extinction through climate catastrophe motivating things like refusal to truck water to Vegas, and on the other hand you’ve got millions of settlers with guns and an ideology born of manifest destiny. What do you think is going to happen? Emigration to Europe is one way to ensure that settlers get to feel like they can keep their ideology and don’t need to form militias to fight against an indigenous nation. Barring that, history shows that reactionary ideologies will emerge just by virtue of the indigenous ascending to sovereignty, even without the environmentally-enforced displacement. With displacement, reactionary forces are going to be violent and incredibly difficult to manage, so there will absolutely be repression enforced by the state on behalf of the ruling class. After all, that’s what the state is for, right? In this case, indigenous self-direction is going to be in the seat of power and reactionary settlers are going to be repressed.
But “Hunted down to the last”? What is this racist BS? Who the fuck suggests this? There’s not a single serious person who says anything like this. This is the sort of thing Europeans said to each other, wrote into laws and doctrines, and then executed. It’s not surprising when Europeans project it onto others, but it’s still just as disgusting.
That’s what historically happened in Haiti.