- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
Billie Eilish joined Bad Bunny in speaking out against ICE during her acceptance speech at the Grammy Awards, slamming the organization after winning song of the year for “Wildflower.”
The singer was bleeped as she said “fuck ICE,” giving strong commentary during the speech. “Thank you so much. I can’t believe this. Everyone else in this category is so amazing. I love you so much,” she said, standing next to her brother Finneas. “I feel so honored every time I get to be in this room. As grateful as I feel, I honestly don’t feel like I need to say anything but that no one is illegal on stolen land. And, yeah, it’s just really hard to know what to say and what to do right now, and I feel really hopeful in this room, and I feel like we just need to keep fighting and speaking up and protesting, and our voices really do matter, and the people matter, and fuck ICE. That’s all I’m going to say. Sorry. Thank you so much.”
Removed by mod
The main contention for calling land stolen is if the people settling it displaced other people to do so. It’s possible to settle land without displacing its current inhabitants, and I wouldn’t consider that stealing.
Okay, rephrase… where do people live now where no one was displaced?
(all land has original owners that were displaced)
they don’t.
the ‘stolen land’ argument derives from some idealized utopia that doesn’t and never existed. its similar to the ‘noble savage’ myth that if ‘society’ didn’t exist we’d live in paradise because human beings in their ‘natural state’ are angelic and pure and the world would be abundant and perfectly happy.
and nobody who uses it is going to give way their land they own ‘back’. Billie Eilish has multiple properties and none of them are being donated to indigenous people. If you confronted her about that she’d probably call you an asshole and tell you it’s not her responsibility and that some other rich white person should do it, but not them! it was those bad evil people who they are not one of!
It is quintessential virtue signalling. You argue from an ideal that is far fetched that the very same ideal is not one you’d hold yourself accountable too because that would be ‘crazy’ to do so.
to really give back ‘stolen land’ the us government would have to basically displace it’s entire population to unhabited parts of the country where nobody could really live. the reason the natives were ‘displaced’ is because they lived in the places that were desirable to live in and the settlers wanted the land. most of the world’s land mass is not easily inhabitable or agriculturally productive, so humans fight over the parts that are.
and that’s also why nobody fought for land claims in antarctic or the artic, because there was no point. but with global warming possible making it more habitable, we are starting to see polar powers prep for military conflict over it.
it’s also why if you buy 1000 acres in northern california for a few million, because nobody wants that land, and the same price gets you like 400 sq ft apartment in manhatten.
I invite you to listen to the people who have, for hundreds of years, been kidnapped, raped, beaten, tortured, killed, poisoned, humiliated, dehumanized, robbed, genocide, persecuted, and as of now are incarcerated at levels 10x that of any other group.
https://ndncollective.org/landback/
https://davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/what-is-land-back/
In some cases, land is directly returned to Indigenous people when private landowners, municipalities, or governments give the land back to Indigenous tribes. This may take the form of a simple transaction within the colonial real estate framework. In other cases, the transfer of ownership of the land may not be feasible. Co-management of public lands has emerged as a means for Indigenous voices to be consulted concerning the stewardship and use of ancestral lands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Back
if billie eilish wants to buy up a bunch of land and give it back to people, that’s her business. why doesn’t she do that personally, rather than lecturing people at the grammies? leading my example is a lot more powerful than lecturing from a bully pulpit.
she certain has the money and power to make a difference in this regard. but i don’t think she is talking about this particular issue, so much as grandstanding about being anti ICE for scoring some political points.
To let dipshits like you come out of their woodwork to endorse atrocities of their ancestors.
Thanks for your service.
Though I bet when you have to face even a slightest inconvenience with immigrants, you become the victims of the century.
right, my 1850s ancestor who was a substance farmer in Italy totally stole the land from the native americans…
“I want to live in most expensive city in the USA, and I want it to smell like urine, I want to smell urine everywhere I go every second of every day”
I don’t get it. I’m not saying it should be illegal or anything, but… yeah.
I live in one of the most expensive zip codes in the world. It doesn’t smell like urine other than on the subway elevator, which i never use.
I live here because it’s fucking amazing living here, but no place is perfect. The people generally suck balls, but I love being able to walk to a restaurant with my dog and not having to drive a car unless i want to do so. I’m sure living in 1000 acres in northern California has it’s benefits, but I’m not equipped or interested in such a lifestyle. Maybe if I was a prepper I would be.
I reject the premise that there must be some magical land where people have lived undisturbed since the beginning of time for you to even consider that it’s possible to peacefully coexist. There are plenty of places and times where people have settled an inhabited area and did not displace the natives, but no land where no one was displaced for all of human history, and that’s an unreasonable thing to demand I give an example of.
I don’t need a magical land where people lived undisturbed since the beginning of time to consider it’s possible to peacefully coexist.
Of course it’s POSSIBLE.
It’s just rare and temporary
I disagree that it’s rare. In fact, peaceful coexistence is the norm and violent displacement is the anomaly. It only seems like that’s not the case because peace is delicate and unmentionable (what’s there to say in history books about nothing happening?) while violence is sudden and has permanent consequences. A peace lasting centuries can be ended by a single violent event, and that single event will be written about in greater detail than the centuries of peace that preceded it. Our perception of human nature is also skewed by the fact that we’re currently living in a global order dominated by violent settler-colonial factions who have created a system of extraction based fundamentally on theft.
Where has there been peace lasting centuries? Seriously.
Our waves of violence are practically generational , we get brief breaks in between the horrors.
If there are exceptions I am not familiar. Certainly never a century of peace, to my knowledge, or even close
I am not familiar with the history of all of the Earth, I would certainly be interested in any centuries long peace anywhere.
Just picking a random region of the world and looking at Wikipedia’s list of conflicts in Asia, you can try counting the years in the gaps between conflicts and comparing them to the duration of the conflicts themselves. I would bet good money that the average duration of periods of peace in any given region is greater than the average duration of conflicts, and that cumulatively years spent peacefully coexisting far exceed the years spent in conflict.
Notice also that the bias towards violence being mentionable and peace being less so is evident in the fact that I had to do this by finding a list of conflicts rather than a list of peaceful periods.
You’re not incorrect, but the bigger issue is how was the native population treated after having their place stripped from them. It wouldn’t take much for governments to recognise and attempt reconciliation for the idea of stolen land to become less prominent. This is true everywhere, not just in NA.
This is happening right now in SA, and for the same reasons now that we used centuries ago (we need money!).
Who will stand up for the tribes, or for that matter the jungles they live in? Nobody
All we’ve learned since slavery days is a change in semantics with occasional apologies.
The one exception being that island of “hostile” (i.e. wise) natives in the Indian ocean. Our one tiny exception to the rule.
I wish we could learn more about them without ruining it all. Sorry for tangent
So just make them slaves? Cool. 😎
That you don’t even consider coexistence before immediately jumping to slavery as the only alternative says a lot about you.
Not really. But jump to conclusions all you like. It was just an historically popular option. I don’t support slavery.
You don’t seem to understand the history you’re referencing. Slavery and mass displacement / ethnic cleansing aren’t mutually exclusive, they are mutually interdependent. Empires engaging in settler-colonialism didn’t choose one or the other, they did both, always. Even if they outlawed slavery domestically, they still participated in the trade internationally or in their colonies. Settler-colonial empires still engage in slavery to this day, they’re just better at hiding and justifying it. See: the US prison system and abuse of migrant workers, and the kafala system in the middle east (called the “binding system” in Israel until it was de jure abolished in 2006, but de facto continues to this day in a sort of legal gray area). These days the word slavery makes people squeamish, so we call it things like human trafficking, prison labor, migrant labor, and all sorts of other more polite euphemisms to lull us into the false notion that slavery is a thing of the past - or at the least relegated to a tiny secretive black market.
Look at that moral lecture/history lesson you gave me over a joke that whooshed over your head.
You weren’t ‘correcting history.’ You were correcting something you hallucinated
You can go somewhere and start living there, that’s perfectly good.
If you torture the people there to death and say nobody is allowed to live here besides you, then it becomes “stolen land.”
Colonization and conquest are unethical compared to immigration is what I am trying to say.
What you just described as stolen land is historically the way people claimed ownership of lands by conquering them by killing the people there or telling them to get the fuck out, or another great option is make them slaves.
And the historical method was unethical and backwards.
I grew up in Turkey where people extensively talked about how Ottoman empire was great for conquering so much meanwhile the Kurdish population is treated inhumane to this day.
Conquest is Barbaric and was murder even back then. It’s just a mix of “history is written by the victors” and “time makes people forget” that we don’t judge all countries for colonization.
Someone that wants to take over ‘your land’ and kill you or enslave you probably doesn’t really give a fuck about ethics. Especially cuz they’ll probably consider your kin subhuman.
Can you pray to ethics? Are there ‘acts of ethics’ that are going to save you?
There is no country on Earth that isn’t here or there without colonization, wars, and abundant ‘crimes against humanity.’
And much more than just crimes against humanity! There is no country on Earth that isn’t here without helping to kill +90% of the fucking wildlife and wild habitat on this planet.
Anyway back to the first paragraph I made. You’re never going to convince those type of people that will burn you and rape you and enslave you that they should listen to your ethics and they should obey your laws and then your Justice will rain (reign) supreme all over the land with rainbows in the sky and the bears and the lions are hugging the piggies and the bunnies.
I don’t think it’s ethical either, we agree on that!
But I do think being a “colonizer” is practically everyone in the last few millennia, excepting the Sentinel Island natives perhaps and other very rare exceptions to the rule.
The Japanese were colonizers of Japan (supplanting the prior native population), Americans were colonizers of North America, Aztecs were colonizers of South America, English were colonizers of the UK, Romans were colonizers of Italy and most of Europe and North Africa, and so on forever
It’s all basically boils down to ‘my God (or other authority) says we own this land.’
Land is never really owned so it can’t really be stolen. It can be conquered, though. You can have dominion over it. It’s not really ownership, though. Ownership is more of an abstraction(contracts, deeds, bureaucracy and legalese) - it’s not a real thing, it’s an idea. I’m not sure people can own ideas, either… I think more so the ideas own them.
I wonder how much longer Americans will have dominion of America?
five years, tops
I personally think Trump will be a great catalyst for a socialist resurgence and will perhaps make America greater and more united than it has ever been.
I think he is the canary in the coal mine and could never be elected in an actual functioning “democracy/republic”; the mere fact that he is in office means we’re just in the beginning stages of an absolute shit show heavily influenced (perhaps controlled completely) by the heritage foundation/council of foreign relations and their financial backers (it’s actually a pretty fascinating rabbit hole)
I 100% hope that you are right and I am wrong. Maybe we could even get union membership over 10%, CRAZY
Yes. If you want to deport innocent people. move to the Pacific garbage patch.