Lily Gladstone wins Golden Globe!!! 'For every rez kid out there'

Actress makes history as 1st Indigenous person to win for her performance as Mollie Burkhart in Martin Scorsese's #KillersOfTheFlowerMoon.'

Land back is literally Nazi 'blood and soil' ideology. The idea that a certain people have a unique connection to the land of a certain region and are the only rightful rulers of it. Every group of 'indigenous' people killed or forced some other group of people off of that land they're on before they took over it. Everyone is a colonizer if you go back far enough. It's totally incoherent.

Posting this publicly so other people can see this too to confirm I'm not just going completely mad. Are y'all seeing this? Did someone really just roll up to my inbox and claim the Land Back movement is comparable to Nazi ideology? Am I making up this clownery?

Anyway, cite your sources. EVERY group is a bold claim. And even then, that doesn't excuse the atrocities committed unto them by the European colonizers, nor the devastation that said colonizers continue to bring upon the planet and Her people.

From an ecological standpoint, stewardship is crucial to many environments. Native humans have tended to the land, and when colonizers "settled" it, they disregarded any care that it may need and, through a mix of killing Natives off and forbidding them from lands they were on first, keept and still keep them from tending it and never bothered learning to tend it themselves. It's the major reason why the Australian wildfires were so devastating.

But we aren't looking at this from a purely ecological standpoint, are we? We're looking at it from a humanitarian perspective, too. When we show up where other people already are and violently remove them from where they've lived for countless generations, make them houseless, starve them, defile their sacred spaces, mass murder their main sources of food and fabric, forcibly convert them to our religions, separate them from their families, and punish them for speaking their own languages... is it right? Does the fact that some of these nations have warred with others in the past make this okay? Does that make this treatment justified? (I'd think this is a rhetorical question, but considering this anon showed up I feel the need to specify: the answer is OBVIOUSLY NOT.)

This is just the list that I, a white man in the US, came up with on the spot, and this is only about a few of the abuses committed by the US alone. There's a lot more to be added here. No people deserve such mistreatment and no people ever will.

The continued persecution of Native peoples around the world will not end until the rights to stewardship of lands they had stolen from them are acknowledged.

LAND BACK NOW

Edit: Whenever I come back to edit this, Tumblr deletes all my sources in that big block of atrocities, so I'm just posting them all here below. TW for racism, genocide, and...just about everything else.

The Kurtjar people called the years that followed the nokotink or "no good times". Old women told the stories to young boys like Rolly Gilbert, who passed them on in the 1970s:

They drove us away from our soak at re·kṫr̃añc, or Skull Hole, so that their cattle could have the water. They shot many of our people their, and you could still see the bones in recent years, before the last flood.* The white men or the Native Police also shot up whole camps of our people at such places as Imperṫñ, r̃okmpak, ñomokŋkṫat and Iṉṯeṫr̃. Butcher Pallew's father was shot at Iṉṯeṫr̃, but by playing dead he was able to later escape and tell us what happened. Sometimes white people left poisoned flour for our people to take, and some of our people died from that too.

* About 1974.

"Killing for Country: A Family History" - David Marr

Find out from 👇 

👉 Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) Limited 

👉 ANTAR

👉 National Justice Project

👉 New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC)

👉 Pay The Rent 

👉 SNAICC - National Voice for our Children

how you can help advance the rights of Australia's First Peoples! 

📸 by Stewart Munro on Unsplash

Red coats and red faces

(via Strong Resilient Indigenous Inspirational Activism Gift For Indigenous People Classic T-Shirt by norhan2000)

Have you heard of the American Indian Movement? Did you know natives had a movement/group in the 70's-80's dedicated to native liberation?

No? It's a part of history they don't teach you in school, but come close and look so I can show you.

Watch this, it's not long I promise. This is Russel Means, a prominent native activists and one of the leaders of AIM. AIM sought to help natives with things like tribal sovereignty, housing, healthcare, and food security.

Here he is testifying to the US government.

The transcript ^

A little excerpt of the end:

"The American Indian people’s right to self-determination is recognized and will be implemented through the following policies:

The American Indian individual shall have the right to choose his or her citizenship and the American Indian nations have the right to choose their level of citizenship and autonomy up to absolute independence;

The American Indian will have their just property rights restored which include rights of easement, access, hunting, fishing, prayer, and water;

The BIA will be abolished with the American Indian tribal members deciding the extent and nature of their governments, if any;

Negotiations will be undertaken to exchange otherwise unclaimed and un-owned federal property for any and all government obligations to the American Indian nations, and to fully -- and to hold fully liable those responsible for any and all damages which have resulted from the resource development on or near our reservation lands including the -- including damages done by careless and inexcusable disposal of uranium mill tailings and other mineral and toxic wastes.

I want to thank you, gentlemen, for inviting me here. It's been a high honor, especially since I'm the only one invited here today to testify that doesn't receive money from the federal government. Also, I want to make -- I was introduced as a former founder and leader of American Indian movement to the tribal chairwoman that you have here, a former associates for the American Indian Movement back in the days when we were gross militants and so I just wanted to let you in on that, that the American Indian Movement is a very proud continuing part of American Indian Society.

Thank you."

"The American Indian Movement remains based in Minneapolis with several branches nationwide. The organization prides itself on fighting for the rights of Native peoples outlined in treaties and helping to preserve indigenous traditions and spiritual practices. The organization also has fought for the interests of aboriginal peoples in Canada, Latin America and worldwide. “At the heart of AIM is deep spirituality and a belief in the connectedness of all Indian people,” the group states on its website."

LAND BACK IS LAND BACK

Turtle Island Indigenous (First Nation & Native Americans)

Latin America's

Palestine

Puerto Rico

Aboriginal Land

Aotearoa

Samoa

Hawai'i

Congo

Hong Kong

Yemen

(Please reblog with more places that in their right deserve their land back.)

image description by @swosheep

ID 1: All images are screenshots of a post made by walidalwawi on Instagram. They are all of black text on a plain white background. The first image is titled "Indigeneity in Palestine and Israel's Co-Opting of Indigenous Struggles" in large font. The body text, much smaller, reads: "Any discussion of Indigeneity regarding a group of people must delve into colonialism, particularly settler colonialism." Below the body text there is text reading: "1/10", with an arrow pointing left.

ID 2: The second image is titled: "1. What Is Indigeneity?" in underlined text. The body text reads: "In a broader scientific context, the term 'Indigeneity' or 'Indigenous' refers to the origin of a species or organism from a specific location. However, when referring to a people in the context of human rights and international law, 'Indigenous' refers to the original inhabitants of a particular region who have lived there for generations before the arrival of colonial settlers from another country. The immigrants view the natives as detrimental to the colony; therefore, they dispossess them of their lands, resources, and cultural heritage and marginalise or suppress their rights and identities."

ID 3: The third image reads: "In 2007, The UN formally recognised the rights of indigenous peoples by adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The working definition of 'Indigenous Peoples': '…those communities, peoples and nations who, having a 1. historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves 2. distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They 3. form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are 4. determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples…'"

ID 4: The fourth image reads: "Example of indigenous people: - First Nations, Inuit and Métis in Canada - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia A group is not referred to as indigenous if they are not within or experienced a colonial power structure, even if they practically originate from their current locality, for example: - Frankish People in France - Anglo-Saxon Englishmen in the British Isles - Dutch, Italians, Germans. In face, Indigenous groups may cease to be referred to as indigenous if their colonial relation is dismantled. Thus, to Identify the Indigenous we must identify the coloniser as the two are often closely intertwined."

ID 5: The fifth image is titled: "2. Israel, A Proud Colonial State." In underlined text. The body text reads: "Historically, colonial expansion was a source of European pride, with no understanding of Indigeneity as a right to land but as a negative status indicating savagery and backwardness. Political Zionism, a movement that emerged in late 19th century Europe, was heavily influenced by colonial ideologies of the time, a fact that is well- documented in the writings of Zionist thinkers and politicians, including Theodor Herzl, regarded as the 'Father of Modern Zionism.' In his quest for support and recognition, Herzl sought alliances with colonial powers such as France and the United Kingdom and other settler colonial states like the United States and Canada."

ID 6: The sixth image reads: "In 1902, Herzl famously wrote to Cecil Rhodes, one of the most significant British colonial figures in Africa, seeking support for his Zionist endeavour:". A block quote, all in underlined text, reads: "You are being invited to help make history. That cannot frighten you, nor will you laugh at it. It is not in your accustomed line; it doesn't involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor, not Englishmen but Jews. But had this been on your path, you would have done it by now. How, then, do I happen to turn to you, since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial.!" Body text continues: "In his address to the first Zionist Congress, Herzl rationalises his colonial mission in Palestine:". Another block quote with underlined text reads: "It is more and more to the interest of the civilised nations and of civilisation in general that a cultural station be established on the shortest road to Asia. Palestine is this station and we Jews are the bearers of culture who are ready to give our property and our lives to bring about its creation."

ID 7: the seventh image reads: "Jabotinsky, a Russian Jewish Zionist leader and founder of the Zionist terrorist organisation Irgun which helped establish israel. Wrote in his book The Iron Wall:". A block quote, all in underlined text, reads: "'Zionist colonisation must either be terminated or carried out against the wishes of the native population. This colonisation can, therefore, be continued and make progress only under the protection of a power independent of the native population an iron wall, which will be in a position to resist the pressure to the native population. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs…' "'If you wish to colonise a land in which people are already living, you must find a garrison for the land, or find a benefactor who will provide a garrison on your behalf…. Zionism is a colonising venture and, therefore, it stands or falls on the question of armed forces.'" Body text continues: "This colonial history is not limited to the past, as we can see it vividly today in israel's colonial practice of daily oppression against the Palestinian natives."

ID 8: The eighth image reads: "Examples of standard methods used by settler colonies to oppress indigenous peoples: a. Land Theft and Dispossession: 1948, upon the establishment of israel, around 700,000 Palestinians were forced to flee or were expelled from their homes by israeli forces 1950, israel established the "Absentee Property Law", which allows the israeli government to seize control of land belonging to Palestinians who fled or were forced to leave during the 1948 war. b. Forced Assimilation: The "Judaization" of Palestinian neighbourhoods by promoting Jewish settlement and adopting Hebrew as the official language in education and public life while restricting Palestinian cultural expression, including banning books, films, and other media that are critical of israeli policies. E.g. The ban of the Palestinian flag in the occupied Gaza Strip and West Bank in 1967 and the prohibition of artworks containing the flag's four colours in 1980. c. Economical Exploitation: israel controls the majority of the water resources in the region as well as exploits Palestinian natural resources, including minerals, quarries, and agricultural land. Palestinian farmers have reported that israeli settlers have uprooted their olive trees, destroyed their crops, and polluted their farmland."

ID 9: The ninth image is titled: "Israeli Exploitation Of Indigeneity." in underlined text. The body text reads: "The international community's significant shift towards acknowledging indigenous people's struggles against colonisation, and the broad negative sentiment towards colonialism, forced israel to rethink its history and create a new narrative to legitimise its presence in the region and strip Palestinians from their indigenous status. By reframing its colonial mission as one of indigenous people's decolonisation of their rightful territory, israel appropriates the rhetoric of indigenous empowerment while in contradiction continuing to seek funding and legitimisation from other settler colonial states, who continue to suppress other indigenous groups, as well as openly and publicly practices settler colonial oppression against the Palestinians."

ID 10: The tenth image reads: "israel bases its argument on a supremacist ethno-nationalist and misleading definition of Indigeneity, claiming it to be an innate Jewish characteristic and not one imposed by colonialism. Such a claim severely harms indigenous groups on their mission to decolonisation by providing a legitimising framework for colonial tactics like ethnic cleansing, land theft and genocide to any group that claims ancestral ties to the land. Yet, even if one was to entertain the Zionist claim of Indigeneity through lineage, multiple genetic studies have already shown that many Jews and Palestinians share ancestry, rendering such claim unjustifiable, as the ethnically cleansed Palestinian are population shares the same ancestral history."

I’m confused, Australia’s independent so why are the anarchists, trying to gain Australia’s independence?

uh okay with the caveat that im an american, it's fairly straightforward to me. 'australia', the violently established colonialist state that grants citizenship primarily to the white descendants of the original genocidal settlers, does not at this point need to gain any more independence from england, which is in the 21st century a soggy little mess reduced to kicking around a last few even more befucked islands.

the first nations / aboriginal people of that continent, however, are extremely fucking fed up with the genocidal resource extraction of their unceeded lands and the brutal repression they face by a society that wants them dead so as to keep using their land. those are the people who are against the unjust imposition of a government that very, very arguably doesn't have a right to rule them.

what white australians traditionally celebrate as the founding of their new nation, the aboriginal people traditionally view this event as what it was: an invasion.

anyway, again, i'm an american, but we've got an extremely similar situation going on here with our own indigenous people, tho our situation's additionally complicated by a couple centuries of chattel slavery intermixed with all the genocide. also, a lot of the ground troops of the australian invasion were conscripted prisoners who didn't have a choice in what they were being used for, which im aware complicates the moral culpability of the situation.

also, my words-- white, native--might not be the most correct, and i freely admit i'm using the terms i'm most used to for my local context. (i have edited to use 'aboriginal' on advice from actual australians)

australians feel free to reblog with corrections and elaborations!

I’m not indigenous myself, but do feel a bit weird seeing people use the term “tribal” - Cam is First Nations and (as far as I know) in Canada generally (other) terms used are like, native/aboriginal/indigenous

Hi so glad u brought this up! Yes I’ve been seeing that a lot also but haven’t been sure how to approach the subject. I’m gonna try to do my best, but keeping in mind my view comes from my nation which is native to the US.

The most correct terms for any indigenous person will always be the nation that they came from. Obviously we don’t know that for Cam, so she is First Nations. Native and indigenous are also valid terms. I’m not sure how it’s taught in other countries, but in the US we generally accept that aboriginal is a term used strictly for indigenous Australians.

While I’m not a fan of using tribal as a descriptor, I understand why other people would use it if they lack the correct vocabulary. I don’t see the use as malicious it’s more just lacking knowledge

This all being said I’m not surprised that this use of incorrect vernacular is happening. There are so few native characters in popular media Cam could very well be someone’s first introduction to indigenous people/culture. Cam is a heavily layered character and any analysis of her indigenous side requires a fair bit of nuance.

If you are referencing the ask I got earlier about Cam’s name, the better way to phrase it would be her First Nations or traditional name.

I won’t fault anyone that comes onto my page and wants to talk about cam’s ‘tribal’ identity, but you’re right in that the most respectful way to talk about her is First Nations/indigenous/native :)

It's November! #HappyNativeAmericanHeritageMonth

So, you might wonder, What is Native American Heritage Month?

A brief article with videos, photos and ways to celebrate by Akwesasne Mohawk journalist and author Vincent Schilling.

#NativeAmericanHeritageMonth

via Native Viewpoint

Crevan ESPANE (???) aep Caomhan Macha. But what if... Iberian elves?

Neolithic populations of the British Isles reveal genetic threads leading to present day Northern Spain and Portugal. Of particular interest, in relation to the later Celtic culture (6th century BC) then would be the Celtiberians.

The oldest identified population of the Islands belonged to the same group as the Greek Pelasgians or the Italians Etruscans. Anglo-Saxon historians call this mysterious people Iberians, because they are believed to have come from the Iberian Peninsula. It is not known from where they came to the Iberian Peninsula, when they landed in the British Isles and whether they found and conquered any indigenous, ancient races there.3 The Iberians did not leave many traces of themselves in the Islands (if, of course, we do not count the Stonehenge and New Grange), which leads to the conclusion that they did not develop like the Etruscans, but remained at a rather primitive level of civilizational development until the arrival of the Gallic Celts (around 6th century BC), an ethnic group of particular interest to us. Part of the indigenous primeval population of Britain (the alleged Iberians), survived, however, they did not integrate with the Gallic Celts and were not conquered. These were the tribes that inhabited the wild, inaccessible highlands and mountains in the north of the Island - Albany, which is today's Scotland. These northern tribes, as we will see later, defended themselves against foreign pressure very effectively and for a very long time. - A. Sapkowski, The World of King Arthur

Truthfully, this is not meant as elves = Celts. Or that elves = Iberians. It is merely to repeat: elves are migrants. A wave of migrants shrouded in myth and dreams, who - by mixing history and legend - would have given Celts many of their deities, places of worship, and culture (possessing similar language, traditions, cultural mores/taboos, etc). Strange folk, who arrived one day in their white ships, only to - in time - forsake these shores just as suddenly; leaving behind an ubiquitous mark of their presence. If you were Irish, then you might have called them Tuatha Dé Danann - Tribe of gods, or, later, Children of the Goddess Danu. If Welsh, then Ellyllon, or Tylwyth Teg, the host of Annwn. If Scottish, then Aos Sí, Sidhe.

The British Islands, as we call them today, were exceptionally lucky in terms of the people living there. They have been visited over and over again since time immemorial. After defeating the indigenous population, the invader quickly became an "aboriginal" only to be defeated and conquered by someone else who became an "indigenous" again, and so on. Thanks to this, it is not known who was the "real native" there. I mean, it wouldn't be known if it weren't for myths and legends. - A. Sapkowski, The World of King Arthur

Making Espane in Avallac'h's name a homage.

Everyone has the right to some roots. Even legends.

---

[3] "Quite recently, a Bulgarian philologist, on the basis of a study of the Hittite and Etruscan languages, proved that these languages derive from a common root. The Etruscans, the Bulgarian continues, are the people who came to Italy from Asia Minor. To be precise, it is none other than the Trojans of Homer and Virgil. And if the Etruscans and the British Iberians are related, the legend of Brutus, a descendant of Aeneas unexpectedly shows us its second bottom."(Sapkowski, A. The World of King Arthur)

Sapkowski is herein drawing the connection between the settlers of the British Isles and the exiles of Troy.

My second favourite theory comes from @lladmie

Colonial appropriation of indigenous lands often began with some blanket assertion that foraging peoples really were living in a State of Nature – which meant that they were deemed to be part of the land but had no legal claims to own it. The entire basis for dispossession, in turn, was premised on the idea that the current inhabitants of those lands weren’t really working. The argument goes back to John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1690), in which he argued that property rights are necessarily derived from labour. In working the land, one ‘mixes one’s labour’ with it; in this way it becomes, in a sense, an extension of oneself. Lazy natives, according to Locke’s disciples, didn’t do that. They were not, Lockeans claimed, ‘improving landlords’ but simply made use of the land to satisfy their basic needs with the minimum of effort. James Tully, an authority on indigenous rights, spells out the historical implications: land used for hunting and gathering was considered vacant, and ‘if the Aboriginal peoples attempt to subject the Europeans to their laws and customs or to defend the territories that they have mistakenly believed to be their property for thousands of years, then it is they who violate natural law and may be punished or “destroyed” like savage beasts.’ In a similar way, the stereotype of the carefree, lazy native, coasting through a life free from material ambition, was deployed by thousands of European conquerors, plantation overseers and colonial officials in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Oceania as a pretext for the use of bureaucratic terror to force local people into work: everything from outright enslavement to punitive tax regimes, corvée labour and debt peonage.

From The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity (2021), by anthropologist David Graeber and archaeologist David Wengrow

Responding To A Common Zionist Talking Point

The Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel; why don't you support them getting their land back like you do Native Americans and Māori and Aboriginal Australians and so on?

Yes, they are indigenous to it - on the same timescale by which I, a white Englishman, am indigenous to Germany.

The English were originally the Anglo-Saxons, English is demonstrably a Germanic language, we are genetically similar to Germanic people, and so on. But it would be insane to suggest we have a right to Saxony. Because we've been so long apart from there that we have ceased to be indigenous to it.

Similarly, the Jews as a group ceased to dwell in the land of Israel with the suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt in 136 AD, and from then to 1948 the Jews were dispersed across Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. For comparison, the Angles and Saxons arrived in the British Isles in the Migration period, from c.375 AD to 568 AD.

And they adapted to their regions. A Sephardi Jew from Italy or an Ashkenazi one from the Netherlands is more native to those respective countries (or to the USA, more likely these days) than to Israel. They speak those countries' languages and have adapted to their culture. Hence, modern Jews are not indigenous to the land of Israel.

Related, Israel is a different situation to Land Back movements in the USA or independence for Tibet. The Roman Empire (and the Byzantine after that, and the Caliphates after that, and to a lesser extent the Ottoman) is long gone, and so any attempt to be just to Jews by giving them the land will punish the Palestinians for something they did not do.

Challenging Canada's sham democracy