bonus: the admin's goofy ass response a few minutes later:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

Or for more recent examples, the settlers wouldn't react so strongly to land defense actions in the last decade (at Mauna Kea, Standing Rock, Line 3, Wet'suet'en lands, etc. etc.) if they didn't consider them threats

Honestly, I feel like they might react so strongly not because they feel threatened, but because they consider indigenous groups so unthreatening they can dispel with the thin veneer of civility and apply the boot directly wherever possible.

I'm not saying there's no hope, probably some reparations and an improvement of conditions is achievable with intersectional support, but decolonisation and proportionate reparations are never going to happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    Honestly, I feel like they might react so strongly not because they feel threatened, but because they consider indigenous groups so unthreatening they can dispel with the thin veneer of civility and apply the boot directly wherever possible.

    The absolute mental gymnastics. State violence isn't wielded against non-threats. Would you say that the state didn't view Fred Hampton and the BPP as a threat? Or that isntreal doesn't view Gaza as a threat? Your words imply as much.

    I'm not claiming the state sees these threats as existential. But to claim there's no perceived threat at all is genocide denial.

  • source
  • parent