374
Listen to the marginalized rule
(lemmy.tf)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
374 points (100.0% liked)
196
16452 readers
1818 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Dude... The VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST majority of indigenous aren't out there "protecting lands", and have no more connection to nature then you or I.
Nice casual racism though!
And that other 90% of humanity is working to industrialize to get where we are. It's a massive issue that as far as I'm aware we have no solution to.
What does "indigenous" even fucking mean. I'm of European descent living in Europe, motherfucker I'm the indigenous one around here.
This comic pretty directly equates "indigenous" with "brown & too poor to meaningfully impact their own ecosystems" (which isn't true either because poor countries have a pretty good track record of destroying their own ecosystems as well).
Saying "humans are a plague" is some edgelord type shit. Equating it with fascism is just dumb and dilutes the term "fascism", and on top of that they've managed to illustrate it in one of the most racist ways I've had the displeasure to read in a while.
Maybe I can give the author some slack and assume they're being a typical yankee and completely disregarding the rest of the world, and trying to be progressive by supporting the work Native American reserves do. But even then it's inexcusably dumb.
Fuck... I never thought about indigenous Europeans. Does this mean Brexit was technically an anti-colonism movement?
eh, when only [former] colonial powers are fighting it's just called fighting.
However, I've seen people unironically say that the Irish were colonized by the Brits, we just don't call it that because Irish people are white.
IDK whether or not I agree, but it's certainly an interesting parallel as British rule over Ireland really did not differ that much from British rule over other overseas territories.
I don’t see how that’s in any way controversial. The colonization of Ireland by the English using the Scots-Irish as the primary Settler class is pretty well documented.
The facts of English rule over Ireland is well-documented. The particular framing of it as colonization is something that stands out to me is all.
Wikipedia only uses that terminology Sparingly. Again, not because it's not colonization, but because I think most people think of colonization as a thing that white people do to brown people.
The choice of framing is interesting because when you think about it colonization is just invading a place and imposing your citizens as a ruling class and your culture as superior (etc.). There are LOTS of instances of that throughout history that we don't usually call "colonization" (say, the Normans colonizing England), because in practice that word evokes the very specific kind of colonization that was practiced by Europeans from the 1400s onward. So I see insisting on saying that "Ireland was colonized" instead of "Ireland was invaded/oppressed" (both of which are correct) as a way to emphasize the harshness of British rule by appealing to colonial remorse. I don't say that judgmentally, I just find the linguistic aspect interesting.
Sometimes i forget that not everyone has an oversized interest in colonization, and things that seem obvious to me may not be so to others or widely held as popular opinion. Thanks for your perspective, I appreciate it. Cheers!
Great Britain's a particularly bad example because most of the people living there today are descended from invaders and colonizers. It's telling that the areas that have more natives there (Scotland, Wales) voted not to leave.
Wales voted for Brexit though.
Oh, oops! Forgot that they're like the US South of England!
Yeah, while I agree with the core message rebuking ecofascism and pointing out that environmental damage is a capitalistic issue, depicting indigenous folks as the sole tenders of the land is some Noble Savage shit.
Do you know where Noble Savage myth came from? From legitimate dialogues between Europeans and Indigenous during the colonization of the Americas. Dialogues like the ones between Kandiaronk and Lahontan, that Europeans were so racist they couldn’t believe were from an indigenous person, so instead they claimed that their countrymen were using metaphor with absolutely no evidence.
THAT'S the term! Thank you! It was reminding me of the Mystical Blackman trope.
I'm just gonna stop and bitch for a second. As friggen disappointing as it is to see left leaning individuals adopt bigioted attitudes, do you know what the real disappointment is? All the people that don't say something. All the people that don't do something.
People will sit there and talk about bringing down the system, about how horrible the right is, "eat the rich" and all that. They'll post memes everyday about challenging the status quo, but when push comes to shove it's crickets.
Meanwhile I'm getting ready to kamakazi my latest social group for the umpteenth time because someone in the group was intentionally violating the personal space of another. I know no one is going to have my back.
People talk a lot lately about the paradox of tolerance and use that as justification for censoring certain political opinions. The problem isn't tolerance though, it's the silence. It's people not wanting to make themselves uncomfortable, or unpopular.
-ninja edit-
After some discussions with chatGPT what im describing relates to "The Spiral of Silence"
✌️😝
The noble Savage trope is itself a racist trope that came out of colonial Europeans bigoted beliefs that indigenous could not possibly be civilized, and thus that any seemingly civilized points made by an indigenous person were actually made by Europeans as a critique of their own culture. Look into Kandiaronk and Lahontan. There is mountains of proof that not only did Kandiaronk exist, but that he directly participated in debates with the European governments that colonized the area he was from. There is Absolutely no evidence that any of what Kandiaronk said was anything other than his own words, yet the noble savage myth allows Europeans to claim that he couldn’t possibly have done so. So, no, I don’t think this is noble savage stuff, and I think the noble savage myth serves primarily to prevent meaningful critique from coming from outside of the dominant hierarchies by infantilizing indigenous people.
On your other point, I agree to a point.
Your comments reminds me of MLKs talk of the white moderate, who prefers the absence of tension to the presence of Justice. Many people will choose not to “rock the boat” to keep “peace”, rather than stand up for Justice and create Peace. It is very important we do not stand on the side of moderation in the face of injustice. I’m sorry to hear no one stands up to those people in your group. I would also leave a group in that situation.
Regardless of what Kamdiaronk said I don't think it's right to stereotype indigenous people right here right now.
Regardless of what Kamdiaronk said I don't think it's right to stereotype indigenous people right here right now.
Funny, because I’m a native of turtle island, and happen to be very involved with indigenous land protection across multiple continents in collaboration with literally hundreds of unique cultures, all of which are protecting lands and water.
Then this is a good opportunity for you to check your confirmation bias. You and I both know you're not replying to me with a coconut radio.
Funny that you think that the only way to protect things is by being a Luddite or something
I think it's hypocritical.
You haven’t done a good job of explaining why thus far.
Other people seem to have no issue understanding. I think my coconut comment was on point, and the fact that you responded referencing Luddites shows I've explained myself perfectly fine.
What specifically don't you understand about me saying I think this is hypocritical?
That it implies that the only people capable of making critiques of society are people who reject material reality and try to live a thousand years ago.
Anyone can critique society.
sure, but some critiques make more sense than others
That's right, some critiques do make more sense then others! Gold star! 🌟
I don't get your 1st issue. That statement was based on statistics offered throughout the blurb. Are you claiming those statistics are wrong or inherently racist?
I think it's fucking weird the comic attempted to differentiate indigenous from the rest of humanity so that's specifically what I'm taking issue with.
While saying that indigenous people are inherently more connected to nature is at best iffy however I think the point the comic was trying to make is that on a general basis indigenous are (or were depending on how much of their culture and history has been destroyed) more knowledgeable of the lands that they have been inhabiting. More specifically compared to the colonisers that invaded their land.
If you already know that and was just pointing out discriminatory language then yeah not much to say
I see this as racist rhetoric, and I think the point of the comic was to be divisive. It's not that I don't understand the reasoning, it's that I'm looking at it from a step back.
Like if I made an anti-crime meme, and tossed in that blackmen are convicted, and charged with more crimes, the racism would be a lot more apparent because it's promoting negative bias towards blacks.
But this shit isn't any less racist, it's just more palatable.
you have some of a point here, and yeah, for various reasons, including marginalization, its resulting societal standings, and simply the lack of opportunity to industrially fuck up the landscape, indigenous people do in fact tend to end up as better stewards of the land. however, suggesting that this is because they're born special and aren't just following a different culture and incentive structure is a slippery slope that tends to end up in ethnonationalism on the part of whoever colonized a given piece of land first.
colonialism is absolutely a problem to this day, but it's not the only problem there is. while eco-fascism can go to hell, simply opposing it does not automatically clear your ideology of any problems.
Those statistics are shakey at best I looked into it and was unable to find any real evidence of the stat being anything more than lip service.
Aborigines literally burned down all the trees and created a massive island desert lol this is retarded
Do you have a source? I think this is possibly a misunderstanding. Australia's aboriginals did controlled burns, but Australia's desert predates humans (from my research).
The problem has never really been industrialisation or resource shortage (e.g Rare Earth Metals aren't really rare at all, just more difficult to extract and the cheapest methods are polluting >.<) . It's that the technologies used to do it in a green way with more automation have been actively pushed against by the oil and gas industry (for example solar cells have been around for a long time but refining the tech to improve cost/kWh could only happen recently with absolutely tons of pressure, or the way cities are designed for cars, etc.), the fact that we do not recycle important resources very much (phosphorous in particular), and also the fact that the upfront cost of automation for the more dangerous aspects is higher than using slave/cheap labour, which is enabled by capitalism in combination with extreme short-term mindsets which prevent automation systems from reaching economies of scale/meta-automation nya. Also, because right now polluting is slightly cheaper in the current economic system than containing waste and even reprocessing it, which is another problem.
The main risk with "resource shortage" is actually land-use agriculture rather than industrialisation more generally. In particular, we value "unused" (in colonised areas, this is often formerly controlled/managed by indigenous groups, but this was not considered "usage" by colonialists >.<) land very poorly, and our economic systems incentivize using order-of-magnitude less efficient agricultural technologies on wide open land, over using indoor (or vertical) systems which are far more able to recycle water and avoid fertilizer runoff/waste, are more resilient to climactic changes, and produce significantly better yields with no pesticides nya.
Such systems require some construction and hence the land cost is much higher, even though it would be far more ecosystem-friendly and promote food autonomy for urban areas, as well as allowing "re-wilding" efforts by massively reducing land use. The other problem is energy usage - but generally I think we should prefer higher-energy mechanisms that are more circular and less land-hogging, because electrically powered systems can be and are being green-ified over time as the electric grid becomes more powered by renewables or nuclear.
Even basic techniques, not including the vast potential of environmentally controlled indoor farms, massively mitigate a lot of the issues with agriculture, but a lot of places are unable to do these sorts of things due to various socioeconomic factors >.<, including things like intellectual property law increasing costs and decreasing mass production capabilities of mechanized agricultural systems (including things like those robots that can kill weeds without pesticides), or access to research and education on these topics for farmers, or the fact that Slash and Burn is often cheaper in the short term.
For example, the yield of potatoes per hectare has huge variance, with New Zealanders getting on the order of 60-80 tons/hectare, but many other countries getting much lower yields (19-30 tons/hectare >.<). This is just with basic outdoor farming, not including the massive potential of environmentally controlled farms, vertical farms, etc.
(Note: I haven't mentioned the sand issue around concrete, but I could go on a whole thing about that - it is possible to make artificial sand and we could probably do an economy-of-scale thing with that, too, even if it's higher energy for the same reasons of electrification being a good idea even if right this second it still produces more CO2 than directly harvesting the right type of sand from riverbeds and oceans nya).