What does Eddie mean by this?
No, seriously, because I’m confused.
No, seriously, because I’m confused.
GO TO INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES, find out what they need
"Leave Turtle Island and take your planet-destroying ideology with you."
"No no, that means I decide what you need." 
>Go to indigenous communities, find out what they need.
"We want our landback"
>No not like that
It reads to me like he's saying he doesn't support returning land to natives, but he supports benevolently managing their affairs on their behalf. Repugnant, but not surprising from him.
That’s what it read to me as well but it’s just kind of confusing. He seems centred on the US when Indigenous groups and their land spans the entire continent, with crossover into Canada (and I believe Mexico too).
I also don’t think Indigenous people would give up their land to Amazon but that’s just me.
Yeah, he's just a chauvinist, so I wouldn't expect much.
Iirc the Dawes act allowed for individual ownership of tribal land, and for individuals to sell it off. He might be referencing that, but who knows with him!
I mean I get the whole "policy over slogans" argument, but like go talk to American Indians, they literally just want their fucking land back. It's one of the few times where the policy asks aren't actually that complicated.
Dude is basically a classic american chauvinist. these patsoc doofuses have latched onto some random NGO called Landback (thus the trademark) that apparently got some funding from amazon.
what he fails to understand because of his chauvinism is that we Indigenous ppl have been using the phrase for centuries and some random NGO doesn't represent us or the slogan. if he actually knew or spoke any Indig ppl he would know this. but he commits the classic doofus error of coming up with his own interpretation of Mao's Mass Line theory but clearly has never actually done it himself cuz they're a petty bourg armchair propagandist that doesn't want to see their powerbase tied to private property chipped away
Careful, they will just use it as an instruction manual after seeing the benefits accrued to them.
I remember seeing somewhere months ago someone saying they didn’t like Settlers and Sakai (it might’ve actually been Eddie although I seriously can’t remember and I wish I had a screenshot) and I never understood why.
Always investigate why people don't like Sakai, 'cause whatever they say, 99.99999% of the time it's because they feel called out by smth in it and the aggrieved whiteness jumps out of them like pus out a pimple. Settlers is my litmus test for whether or not I'm looking at a cracker or a comrade tbh
Part of me wonders if white people weren't even the target audience cause I understood everything immediately lmao
He's basically using a twisted version of the "land stewardship" argument (that somehow the benevolent white settlers of course are the ones who will actually treat the land right rather than sell it to big corpo like... the white settlers have always done), and using (in entirely bad faith) some NGO as an example with which to completely dismiss indigenous land claims (and sovereignty which is inherently tied to land- seriously, this whole post is bullshit) that have existed for centuries prior to NGO grifting even being a thing.
Crackerism of this level, and which co-opts this kind of leftist jargon, is especially dangerous IMO...
What NGO is he even talking about? He says to go to Indigenous communities directly and the advocate for them, but Indigenous people have been advocating for themselves quite well and push for Landback so I don’t know what he’s talking about. I don’t think they’d appreciate some rando speaking over and “for” them.
I don't know. I've seen "leftist" detractors say that Landback is sponsored in some capacity by Amazon with no evidence presented. Which is why he is trying to imply that the land obtained by "LandBack™" as he puts it would be used by Amazon as some sort of corporate fiefdom. It's just Larouchite nonsense.
This is like disavowing BLM, in the rationale that it would be better for Black-American community to do so, in order to get attention to Police Brutality
Utterly incoherent, at best, and at worst, purposely throwing the revolutionary baby from its bathtub...
Edit: advocating on their behalf and recuperating/co-opting their political leadership into the settler framework...? Boy, the Bureau of Indian Affairs did not do good for them, last time I heard...
I just don’t understand, he says to go to reservations and talk to actual Indigenous people but I thought Indigenous people came up with, and advocate for, Landback. His statement about Indigenous sovereignty also doesn’t make sense to me because I don’t know what he means by that…
I just don’t understand, he says to go to reservations and talk to actual Indigenous people but I thought Indigenous people came up with, and advocate for, Landback
Of course, he's just dodging the issue; indigenous people did come up and advocate for the movement. If ye look at the mostly untouched wikipedia page, it says this...
Nextly
His statement about Indigenous sovereignty also doesn’t make sense to me because I don’t know what he means by that…
Just look at my above statement, as many people have said, at best, mistaken in the belief that western NGOs mainly created the Landback movement, at worst, willfully ignorant and malicious...
"We don't need systemic ideas and solutions, just individual action", sounds like anarchism.
Every anarchist I ever met advocated and fought for systemic solutions. This sounds like liberalism
You seem to have polarly different experience with anarchists than me, those i seen sure did talked awful lot but their biggest actions ever were to torch Soviet consulate and attack young ML's on a succdem parade.
So
From what I've gathered here, (was a whiplash for me too), is that there are some cool anarchists that align with our beliefs and support them rather than having direct moral/personal conflict with our beliefs. It's refreshing to see as my personal experiences with them have been awful where I am.
So it sounds like the spirit of what this person is saying is, if somebody bad were to use the phrase "don't do genocide", then we should go consult people being genocided and ask them if it's okay to say "don't do genocide" because it's not really clear if it's the right thing to say, since somebody bad used it. 🫠
You know, that's fine and all; but if you went to the one closest to me and tried to pull "individual action" and start politically organizing as a white person the Rez police will probably just beat the shit out of you and drop you off at the border.
Turns out most of the communities just want you to fuck off entirely unless you're there to buy something or contribute to their community. Advocating for them is good. Running over there to play political missionary isn't. In a lot of political situations, there are advocate groups or similar (AIM) that are meant for collective struggle and will work with your organization or group if you want to support. This dude is just tryna get people shot.
Also this guy is acting like we can't just "go there and talk to them" already. There are a few native americans...you can go meet one online without doing stupid shit on their land.
Common "leftist" action of tryin to make a new organization instead of working within already existing ones.
I'm sure it was just a coincidence that the people affiliated with them (as well as many misled, unwitting agents, unknowingly positioned downstream from those in the 🇺🇸 Patriots' orbit) intensified the spread of divisive propaganda about other orgs & individuals,
much of which has been conducted in the most antagonistic, un-comradely and unprincipled manner.
After that campaign was well-underway, the opportunity would
present itself for a shiny, new entity to Manifest,
one which will surely lead us to our Destiny!
The true “Vanguard” of Proud, Patriotic Americans™,
The AmeriKKKan 
KKKomunist Party
Vilifying comrades (with the aim of driving people further away from each other (to the point where many of us view each other as enemies and engage in the destructive and counter-productive activities desired by our adversaries, yet with the bonus that they don't even need to lift a finger)), presumably in the hopes that their targets would dissolve, is the kind of
wrecker, 
-approved type of activity that serves the interest of the 
dictatorship.
I'd be shocked, SHOCKED, I tell ya! if they weren't affiliated with something akin to the
"Advocating for them directly" still sounds settlerish. The way he says it means that you should ask Indigenous communities what they need and then ask that for them but by yourself. You don't. You ask them what they need, then amplify their voice. You're not a middleman in this situation, you're the loudspeaker.
But he's doing neither of that anyway because this fascist dweeb, whom I repeatedly dunked on back in January, is now becoming an open fascist.