"They're the same picture"

Isn't it fair to say that Native Americans didn't consider land to be "owned" by anyone? What colonialism (and agriculture) did was assert control over land that was previously thought to be communal.

The tragedy of the commons is a capitalist invention. Shared resources have all been managed effectively until the point where they become considered private resources.

Of course they are. They are both prime examples of settler colonialism in action.

People forget that Israel started as a British colony

Don't worry, we'll put it in the textbooks 100 years from now to talk about how cruel we were

Then 50 years later well put someone in power that says it never happened and rip it back out of the books.

Back then the ideological split inside american settlers was between actively killing all natives or putting them into reservations to left them naturally die off over time - as they were "evolutionary obsolete". In fact the bourgeois revolution of the american landlords was started because the British tried to limit american settler expansion and the expansion of slavery into Creek and Chickasaw lands.

The idea of not killing off natives was never present in any large capacity in the early united states.

You forgot the pre-1700s picture where all of the US is red.

Bloodthirsty british and european settlers, greedy for land, wiped out hundreds of native tribes, each with rich cultures, art, languages, and beliefs. And most of this happened less than 150 years ago.
Clearing an entire continent of peoples is unprecendented in history, and what's worse, is that it's still ongoing, and no one has had to account for this earth-shattering crime.
- british and european
- I know who you are and I know you won't bother to read into this but for anyone else interested. Most of the native population was wiped out before the first English got here. Disease spreads and a bunch of Spaniards started spreading diseases in the 1500s.

"Indian reservations" are concentration camps

German labor camps were obviously concentration camps

and the strategic hamlet program were concentration camps

and ICE detention centers are concentration camps

either way it is always white people and their concentration camps

I get the sentiment, and by no means are the reservations good or something that should've been how it played out, but I do feel like putting them on the same level as ICE centers and concentration camps downplays just how bad those latter two really are/were.
- putting them on the same level as ICE centers and concentration camps
  You're right they were way fucking worse than that.
  Have you actually been to a reservation? And not one of the "good ones" (disgusts me to even split hairs like this) but I mean like Pine Ridge. They are literally death camps in all but name.
  A couple years ago one elder was burning his own clothes to keep warm and not freeze to death, another elder died in his home because his fireplace went out while he was sleeping. Drug abuse is rampant kids are killing each other over scraps, there was a shooting at a powwow last year in the middle of sun dance. There is almost no drinking water that isn't contaminated by the nearby bombing range and uranium mines.
  The average life expectancy on Pine Ridge reservation TODAY is lower than it was in Gaza before the recent bombings started.
  Oh and just to get there, the tribes around the black hills were sent on a forced death march through the badlands to settle in the least desirable land in the region.
  This is where they were sent:
- The reservation were designed with the eventually extinction of native americans in mind, yes. Its just much slower and more deniable "social murder"
- I get the feeling you've not been told about all the death and disease Native Americans experienced in reservations, especially at the beginning. The only real difference is reservations did not have buildings...they were just wastelands.

To see diagram progressions like this is really sad. like a beautiful rainforest gradually being chipped away into nothing. same perps too considering the vast majority of Israelis are European

What percentage are European? I didn't know that.
- Look up DNA testing in Israel, their govt doesn't want people testing and finding out their genetic history seems to include an awful lot of eastern Europe and not anything from the Middle East.
  Even Ashkenazi Jews are from Turkey, not historic Palestine.
- well if you look at their leaders it's close to 100 if not that
- The official Israeli CBS cites 50% of Israeli Jews having their ancestry in Europe, primarily Ashkenazi and post-Soviet groups.... but of course, with DNA test ban in Israel is hard to know for sure... Being 75% of the Israeli population Jewish, that places it as 2/3 of Jews in Israel are from European origin... and that is their own stats. I would even say more are.

Wait a sec, wasn't the majority of that land in the western states claimed by New Spain and then Mexico? How is the maker of this map qualifying "land of native nations"?

There were people there before New Spain and Mexico claimed the land. I imagine they're qualifying it using something like the map I linked.
- most of the land was unpopulated
The lands you are probably referring was the Mexican Cession (most of the US western lands now). That cession happened after the Mexican war that ended in the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo signed in 1848. So the map mostly accurately reflects that as US territory in 1850.
They did not control everything. New Spain claimed a territory from Anchorage to the Philippines to Georgia.

Same perpetrators as well.

"Ah but you see, a long time has passed by! There's generations [of settler-colonialists] that have already lived through these times, and the people of today have nothing to do with their past!"

Motherfucker, landback means the LAND which is rightfully the Indigenous' is taken BACK, and it means you GO BACK too, no one should give a fuck about which gen. you're currently a part of.

They're going to say the exact same shit for Palestine if it's allowed to be festered long enough by settler-colonialists, as if it already hasn't been festered.

and it means you GO BACK too, no one should give a fuck about which gen. you’re currently a part of.
This would mean that like 99.9% of Earth's population has to move somewhere. Almost all land was fought over endlessly and changed metaphorical hands multiple times over. What we call "indigenous people" in a territory is usually just whoever was winning those wars before written history began.
What "landback" actually means is recognizing the systemic racism that was and still is perpetuated against the indigenous people by means of taking away their ancestral lands, slaughtering and enslaving their ancestors, and destroying their way of life; and addressing that racism by giving jurisdiction and sovereignty over their lands back to them. It doesn't mean that everyone but the indigenous people have to move out; descendants of colonizers born there are technically natives of that land too. The difference is that they get systemic advantages from their ancestry whereas indigenous people get systemic discrimination. This is the thing that ought to be addressed. (well, the horrifying economic and governance system that the colonizers brought and festered must be addressed too, but all three are tightly coupled together)
In the case of Israel the difference is that a lot of colonizers are first gen, they are not natives, they do have somewhere to "go back to", and they are actively perpetuating colonization and genocide rather than simply getting an advantage from their ancestors doing so. In such cases it of course makes sense for the decolonization effort to focus on direct expulsion of invaders.
- In the extremely unlikely event that indigenous people got direct executive control over what happens in the continental united states, I don't think they'd even want the mass exodus of all white people. Nor do I think they'd want full cultural assimilation. My entire life, the prevailing narrative has always just been the end of systemic oppression. Very frequently I've heard indigenous rights activists demand the free use of/free travel across land for things like hunting, which is a pretty small ask. Just because this or that action would be justified, doesn't mean it's the action people want. IMO the second minority ethnic groups feel safe and represented these kinds of mass exodus narratives will fade away. Doubly so if there was a transition to socialism that went with it, and some thought went into identifying the different national identities (so something akin to a soviet of nationalities could be formed).
- The last will be first. Landback and decolonization means putting the reigns into the hands of the indigenous people's hands, and letting go of the reigns, not just holding onto the reigns but giving the colonized people some of the reigns. The best settlers can hope for is to be treated kinder than they have treated the people whose land they stole. I myself was born in the US, and am still a settler here, just because I was born here does not absolve my role. It means I have a historic duty to help carry out decolonization and land back, from the back, not as a leading role.
  Read Fanon.
- Very few countries currently are based on native eviction, where settlers have nearly replaced the indigenous peoples. The US, canada, australia, new zealand, israel are the main ones.
  I think it's projecting western colonial guilt to claim that all countries are equally based on indigenous eviction. Even colonial projects like Spain's in South America did not do to their indigenous peoples what the british did to north america.
- are actively perpetuating colonization and genocide rather than simply getting an advantage from their ancestors
  USAmericans are also doing this too. The overconsumption done by yankees would require multiple planet earths if everyone were allowed to consume as much as they do and the US government is guilty of exporting a capitalist system that causes climate change, not to mention the imperialism abroad. There is no functional difference between the US and Israel, just "Big Satan" vs. "Little Satan."
- This is an extremely white washed version of land back. Pretty sure land back means full control over what happens on that land, including what kind of people can live on it, something that is currently controlled exclusively by the colonial government.
  If they're feeling generous they might give you the option to stay on the condition that you assimilate into their culture.
  You know, the thing Europeans forced Indigenous peoples to do. Not saying settlers should be forced through violence to do so, but I think it's more than fair that if you're going to stay, you have to assimilate.
  But you're not entitled to even assimilation if they just don't want you here. And they have plenty of reason not to want you here.
  I know that as a 1st gen Chinese immigrant to Canada (I came here as a kid so wasn't my choice), if all the Indigenous groups where I live unambiguously told me to GTFO. I would in good conscience have to do so and hope I can use my birth certificate to reclaim Chinese citizenship. I'm by every definition a settler so it's only fair. Whatever struggles I have in China (namely language barrier since I can barely read Chinese) I will have to deal with and it's not on the Indigenous people to let me stay just because I can't survive anywhere else.
  Where you go back to and what happens to you isn't the problem of the people you colonized. And by transferring that problem on to them, you are in fact perpetuating colonialism.
- What percentage of Israelis do you think are born there?
I call this the finders keepers rule of colonialism. The western supremacists think that as long as you
Kill a large enough percentage of the native population, and
Wait long enough
Then the finders keepers rule kicks in, and you get to keep anything you stole. They even will yell "no ethnostates!!" at indegenous peoples they evicted and stole land from.
The main point is that its not for anyone but indigenous peoples to determine what they want to do with their land.
- I agree that colonizers have harmed indigenous people, but find the argument anyone has a birth right claim to property proposterous. As Proudhon proclaimed, "Property is theft!". I expect any revolution toward anarchy to remove property from the owning class.
  I am less knowledgable than you about "land back". How does "land back" differ from other ethno nationalist movements like "blood and soil"?
I agree with your points entirely, it's just amusing to see the people who do disagree experience a tiny iota of the fear and despair that the indigenous peoples of America and beyond had to feel when their world was destroyed and stolen.
It is really telling that suddenly they fear for their lives once they think they will be victims of the same colonization that gave them privilege. They've internalized that this process only functions through mass slaughter and terror and start waxing poetic about "human nature"
- Realistically and logistically speaking, if they were ever to retrieve their land back, the Native Americans would probably be MORE accepting of the idea to live amongst the working class that don't originate from their land rather than "evicting" the population, basic infrastructure (that's already replaced native tribes' land) would need maintenance, first of all.
  The fact that it scares them that this highly unlikely scenario of reclaiming land then the Indigenous do whatever they want with it is very poetic. The fact that they've probably also imagined dramatically violent scenarios of this is also funny, funny strange.
- Do you think that some far-away land with a different culture, that hates immigrants, would accept someone in just because of blood relation?
  That's not the Indigenous peoples' problem. They might even think it's poetic justice for how European culture treated them. Europe, for its part, also has no right to complain about the influx of North Americans because they started this whole thing.
- Land back means the ownership of the land is returned; it does not mean the expulsion of non-indigenous people
  Not up to you or me, that's up to the indigenous tribes themselves to decide.
  That doesn't really make sense if you're not first-gen; there is nowhere to go "back" to, if you were born there.
  Less than half an hour later, the finders keepers rule I talked about elsewhere in this thread gets invoked.
  Maybe you should get off your armchair and go to a protest.
  Extremely redditor behavior
Also it's very much actively going on and the current generation is totally involved.
- There are people still alive who grew up in residential schools. There are even people alive who knew survivors of the Trail of Tears. The genocide of Native Americans really wasn't that long ago and (like you said) still ongoing.
  Obama forced an oil pipeline through indigenous land in what? 2014?
Relocating what would likely end up being hundreds of millions of people at once, or in any reasonable time-frame, doesn't seem realistic imo.
- Not only is it unrealistic it would lead to the death of millions. Millions of elderly and disabled people would just die from such a relocation.
Motherfucker, landback means the LAND which is rightfully the Indigenous' is taken BACK, and it means you GO BACK too, no one should give a fuck about which gen. you're currently a part of.
Go back to where? I've never lived anywhere else. Land back does not imply ethnic cleansing, and when you say shit like this, you marry the concepts, doing massive damage to the movement.

Some audiobook torrents on the US settler colonial project:

I’m gonna check this out

Didn’t Mexico own a lot of that land in the Southwest?

funny thing is that Texas succeeded from Mexico not to join the US but because Mexico outlawed slavery.
- Seceded
- Traitor lunatics gonna traitor lunatic.

How is this a meme?

Well it's low effort and loses a lot of nuance in the way it draws its maps, so there is that
It's not really, but what a meme is has kind of transcended to "any image on the internet".
- Memes have to be pictures?
  "Birds aren't real" is a meme in my book.
- I remember reading the selfish gene maybe a decade ago... iirc a meme is really just any idea, that like a gene, can replicate and spread, and has a "fitness" to its environment that means it either spreads easier, or dies out. It applies to any idea / mental construct, from art, music, even to sayings, philosophies or moods.

What's the south-west portion of gaza that's assigned to Israel in the map?

Rafah crossing
The gaza strip, ie the current world concentration camp, is where israel and it's euro-amerikkkan allies have quardoned off 2 million palestinians.
- I think you misread the question

Now do Russia and the occupied Soviet "republics" lol, or are you trying to push a specific narrative?

If the nazis didn't get annihilated by the soviet union, the nazis would have done another one of these genocides there

At first I thought I agree with the post and now I'm second-guessing what OP is trying to convey. This is an amazingly ambiguous picture when posted without further commentary.
- You're not sure if you oppose the genocide of indigenous peoples or not?
- I mean, they're trying to say that the terrible colonialism practiced by the European-based American people against the native Americans is happening again in Israel, which is definitely a good point to be made. We're well past the ability to stop the atrocities committed by America in the past, but we're able to stop Israel today. The same idea applies to the terrible treatment of non-while populations in America today by ICE and other agencies, while we're on the topic of preventable atrocities.
- Huh. I hope we can get to understand the post by talking about it. I'm not trying to be condescending or annoying. I'm trying to see what you see. What did you think at first the image showed and how did the comment about tankies lead you to second-guess?
- I think this is another america bad post. Like we don't know that already.
  Posting this to /memes is what confuses me the most

I get the point but these are two very different circumstances. Israelites and Palestinians are both native to the area. Their ancestors were Canaans and Philistines. The ownership of land is the result of western powers deciding how best to divide and conquer.

Native Americans are native to the area and Europeans/Americans were not.

The vast majority of "Israelis" are 100% European whose ancestors converted to Judaism.
There's a reason Israel bans DNA tests. They want to keep up the illusion that they're still descendants of the people the Torah talked about.
I guess it depends what counts as "native"
"no one in my family tree has any memory of the place but we have a book that says we lived there thousands of years ago" is not what most people mean when they say "native"

While OP show north america in the 1800s they failed to supply the original British mandate area from the 1920s which gives a bit perspective to the next images. Also note that while the Jewish leadership accepted the UN partition plan it was rejected by the Arab/Palestinian over and over.

And it is not a meme.

Why do the brits always think they're allowed to draw lines on territory that doesn't belong to them, and evict native peoples.
ah yes the basic 'but arabs rejected the partition!' argument?
is this similar to the terrible 'all palestinians are just arabs' angle so they should just just leave and give it to colonial settlers, just because?
How does it provide any further perspective? "They actually don't deserve their land because they were colonized by the British"?
Why would you expect the Palestinians to accept a plan to give half of their land away to a violent colonial expansionist ideology. Should Poland have peacefully given half their land to Germany to avoid the invasion? Do you really think that would work anyway, or is it just an excuse to blame the victims for their own genocide?
Edit: Also, since then Palestine has called for the partition borders to be enforced, and Israel/their allies were the ones to deny it. Israel only ever supported the plan as a means to an end, further colonial expansion.
- Which Poland borders?
  Over the years borders are dynamic. Most of the time they are changed via wars, violent conflicts and later treaties, some more stable than others. It happen all over the world throughout history. Unless there is a large physical border, you can look at almost any part of the world and see the huge amount of border changes over the years. Focusing on just two places like the above "meme" is hypocrisy.
Also note that right before that Israeli leaders literally killed the UN mefiator Folke Bernadotte because they didn't like how his partition plan and then replaced him with a Zionist who gave all most if Palestine to Jews.

https://media.tenor.com/JJ_is357rXYAAAAM/spike-monkey-typing.gif

What is this supposed to mean? Are you insinuating that the genocide of palestinians or native americans is trivial?
- The past can’t be changed but we need to be aware of the atrocities of the past. But now it can be prevented and something can be done to stop it but world powers are sitting on their asses to fill their pockets. We should be learning from history not repeating it.
  The ambiguity of the meme format makes it seem like rage engagement bait