The aggressor, in the process of atoning for their atrocities, doesn’t really have a right to say that the recourse proposed by the victim is unreasonable.
We are the colonial aggressors, Indigenous people are the colonized victims. I’m obviously not saying that eye for an eye doing the same to us as we did to Indigenous people is justified, but simply returning the land we stole is more than reasonable. And the logical extreme of returning stolen land is that if the rightful owners then wanted you to leave, you should.
Let’s say a man and a woman live in the same house, and the man hits the woman. If the man is truly seeking to atone for his crime, and the woman tells him to move out because even seeing his face is traumatic for her, would it be reasonable for the man to complain that he has nowhere else to go? To ask the woman where she thinks he should go? To try and guilt the woman into letting him stay? If he does any of those, is he truly sorry for what he did?
You’re right that most Indigenous people don’t want mass expulsion. We should be incredibly grateful for that and it’s a testament of their compassion and desire for equality among all people, even after all we did to them. What we shouldn’t do is tell them that they can’t tell us to leave or that we’d refuse to leave because we have a rightful claim to this land. Doing so is completely unproductive and will only serve to make us less deserving of staying.
First I’d like to say that I’ve never even been to north america, my skin colour is closer to “not ok” in the Family Guy card, and as such I’m more of a neutral observer than an active participant.
That said, the fault with your “man and woman” argument is assuming that all non-indigenous people are direct aggressors, or are directly culpable for heinous crimes against humanity.
A person cannot be culpable, and doesn’t need to atone for, the crimes of their ancestors, people who share their race, or otherwise by unwillful association. The crime of most modern descendants of settlers is that of “illegal” (unjust?) immigration, no more and no less. And I don’t believe it is even a crime, more of an infraction that can be rectified by learning the languages and traditions of the local population and becoming part of the community. There certainly are others who are still engaging in direct and active racism, colonization, even genocide. They deserve their own appropriate punishments, not due to their ancestry but due to their actions.
However, what descendants of colonizers definitely owe everyone else in the land is the generational, systemic wealth (land, money, property, social credit, etc) they accumulated because their ancestors robbed and pillaged it from everyone else. Giving it back doesn’t necessarily mean moving out; it means giving back jurisdiction, sovereignty, and sharing the wealth in a just manner (this would probably require some form of socialism or communism).
What we shouldn’t do is tell them that they can’t tell us to leave or that we’d refuse to leave because we have a rightful claim to this land
I don’t think it’s about a “rightful claim” to the land. I agree that the descendants of settlers have an extremely weak claim to the land, if at all. Rather it is about basic humanity and decency. No person should be forced to move out of what they call home through no fault of their own. On the other hand any person living on someone else’s land must learn the language and the culture. It is for the same reason I believe immigrants deserve help, accommodation, and local language courses rather than rejection.
The aggressor, in the process of atoning for their atrocities, doesn’t really have a right to say that the recourse proposed by the victim is unreasonable.
We are the colonial aggressors, Indigenous people are the colonized victims. I’m obviously not saying that eye for an eye doing the same to us as we did to Indigenous people is justified, but simply returning the land we stole is more than reasonable. And the logical extreme of returning stolen land is that if the rightful owners then wanted you to leave, you should.
Let’s say a man and a woman live in the same house, and the man hits the woman. If the man is truly seeking to atone for his crime, and the woman tells him to move out because even seeing his face is traumatic for her, would it be reasonable for the man to complain that he has nowhere else to go? To ask the woman where she thinks he should go? To try and guilt the woman into letting him stay? If he does any of those, is he truly sorry for what he did?
You’re right that most Indigenous people don’t want mass expulsion. We should be incredibly grateful for that and it’s a testament of their compassion and desire for equality among all people, even after all we did to them. What we shouldn’t do is tell them that they can’t tell us to leave or that we’d refuse to leave because we have a rightful claim to this land. Doing so is completely unproductive and will only serve to make us less deserving of staying.
First I’d like to say that I’ve never even been to north america, my skin colour is closer to “not ok” in the Family Guy card, and as such I’m more of a neutral observer than an active participant.
That said, the fault with your “man and woman” argument is assuming that all non-indigenous people are direct aggressors, or are directly culpable for heinous crimes against humanity.
A person cannot be culpable, and doesn’t need to atone for, the crimes of their ancestors, people who share their race, or otherwise by unwillful association. The crime of most modern descendants of settlers is that of “illegal” (unjust?) immigration, no more and no less. And I don’t believe it is even a crime, more of an infraction that can be rectified by learning the languages and traditions of the local population and becoming part of the community. There certainly are others who are still engaging in direct and active racism, colonization, even genocide. They deserve their own appropriate punishments, not due to their ancestry but due to their actions.
However, what descendants of colonizers definitely owe everyone else in the land is the generational, systemic wealth (land, money, property, social credit, etc) they accumulated because their ancestors robbed and pillaged it from everyone else. Giving it back doesn’t necessarily mean moving out; it means giving back jurisdiction, sovereignty, and sharing the wealth in a just manner (this would probably require some form of socialism or communism).
I don’t think it’s about a “rightful claim” to the land. I agree that the descendants of settlers have an extremely weak claim to the land, if at all. Rather it is about basic humanity and decency. No person should be forced to move out of what they call home through no fault of their own. On the other hand any person living on someone else’s land must learn the language and the culture. It is for the same reason I believe immigrants deserve help, accommodation, and local language courses rather than rejection.