Notices by hex (hex@kolektiva.social)

I used to play a fun game with white folks to wake them up a bit. Any time a white person would say something about slavery ending or segregation ending or something, I'd ask them, "When did slavery end, exactly?"

They'd say something about the civil war, and I'd cite Slavery By Another Name and point out peonage in the early 1900's, which wasn't even prosecuted until the 1940's. They guess after that and I'd point out that, legally speaking, there was no law *against slavery* in the US until the 50's. I might point out that Jim Crow was really about extending slavery.

Whatever white person then guesses the civil rights movement ended slavery, and then I'd explain the 13th amendment to them and blow their minds. I might even point out how Walmart was sued for using slave labor when they locked workers in stores after hours and forced them to work without pay.

I feel like the 13th Amendment is common enough knowledge now that basically anyone would answer correctly that slavery is still legal in the US.

So how about we play another game. When was the last time the US violated a treaty with a tribe, failed to uphold a promise in a treaty, or otherwise illegally annex sovereign indigenous land? I don't mean this in the sense that they're always in violation. I mean, what was the last year that the US government violated a treaty that they *had been honoring*.

If you try to Google broken treaties, most results will cover the history up to 1871. Most folks will probably guess the trail of tears or something like that. Some clever folks might point to the annexation of Hawaii in 1898. But I don't think that a lot of people know about the US military via Pierce County violated the Treaty of Medicine Creek by illegally annexing part of the Nisqually reservation in 1918 to expand the local military base called JBLM.

Now... With that starting point, let's play. Putting the question another way...

Ok, so a little over 100 years ago the US military violated the Treaty of Medicine Creek and kicked a bunch of native people off their land and stole it for what became JBLM.

When I was growing up, I remember being taught that the US stole a bunch of land in the past and was all done with that since they stole it all. This all happened in the 1800's, right?

Seeing a 19 at the front of the year feels a bit weird, huh? It feels so much closer. Like finding out slavery was still common in the 1910's and 20's in the south. It kind of changes how one thinks about things... Or at least it did for me. But that's still a long time ago.

Let's talk about something more recent. In 1868 the US signed the Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Lakota people. It said that unused federal lands would be returned to indigenous people. In 1969, a group of indigenous people started occupying the then unused Alcatraz Federal penitentiary. Since it had been declared surplus federal property by the federal government, they were legally reclaiming the land. The federal government forcibly removed the group in 1971. So this would be another instance of forcibly removing indigenous people from land they were promised.... Not 150 or 100 years ago but a little over 50.

Now 1971 doesn't just some how feel closer because it has a 19 in it. My dad was an adult (in Vietnam, if I'm remembering the dates correctly). There are more than a few people on here who were alive then, and may even remember this.

That whole "breaking treatises" period of US keeps creeping closer.

Now there's a whole set of websites dedicated to selling unused federal real estate...
https://www.usa.gov/real-estate-sales

You know, like... exactly what that treaty says the federal government is supposed to return? So the very existence of this....
https://realestatesales.gov/gsaauctions/gsaauctions/

Is basically a big regular violation of that treaty, again and again. So this...
https://realestatesales.gov/gsaauctions/aucpbsindx/?sl=CHICA123006001
Will violate the Treaty of Fort Laramie at some point in the future when it's sold instead of returned.

The whole narrative I remember from school went something like, "we took the land, but now people live on it, so we can't really give it back." But like, here you go. All you have to do is give it back, like the contract you signed where you said you would. It couldn't possibly be easier to fulfill that treaty. There's a whole system designed to track and sell these properties. The hard part is like 90% done. Literally, just give the fucking land back.

When did the US government *stop* violating its treaties with tribes? What year?

I'm gonna tag with #LandBack, because I have some answers (as to when they didn't) but I bet there's a lot I don't know about. (If you're laughing because you know the answer, this is primarily for colonizer education... not excluding my own)

@earwigplanet @AnarchistArt it's funny that the a "real James Bond" would actually be a henchmen, overthrowing countries at the whims of billionaires.

@blogdiva to be 100% clear for anyone who may not realize it, this is not hyperbole or a metaphor.

When you look at Steven Hassan's BITE model (a model of how cults control thought an behavior) and compare it to capitalism in terms of your employer + the state forcing you to work for an employer, it checks quite a lot of those boxes.

Capitalism is *definitely* a cult. This headline is a reminder of what type of cult it is.

The global rise of fascism should remind us that dictatorship is the natural final form of any state. Some states transition more slowly than others, some were always one memetic infection away from triggering the metamorphosis.

States exist to ensure the property rights of the dominant class in all cases, regardless of the economic system they claim to embrace. Some create social programs in order to buy support for their main objective, some dispense with the pretense. All states are fundamentally the same with different veneers of justification.

We will never solve global fascism by voting, we can only delay it. We will solve it by creating systems that don't naturally evolve towards authoritarianism. We will solve it by stripping states of power so that they are not relevant by the time they turn to fascism. Political power is useful to buy time to build dual power, but dual power is ultimately the thing that protects us from fascists wielding political power.

@alter_kaker @nando161 exactly.

The subtle confusion between self-defense and vengeance is the difference between liberation and dictatorship. It's a confusion that authoritarians have exploited for generations... one we can trace right back to the reactionary politics of post-revolutionary France, and the use of the guillotine against the very same revolutionaries who fought the monarchy in the first place.

Vengeance is fundamentally a reactionary impulse.

@Radical_EgoCom every time a CEO says something completely evil, everyone cries out for the #guilotine. But guillotines are only useful once you've already won. They're a tool of revenge.

But what revenge is a quick death? I want these people to see the world they prevented. I want them to be utterly powerless in our utopia, like we have been completely powerless in theirs. I want the malignant narcissism that drives them to have to face the fact that they were never the brilliant people they thought they were. I want them to live in a world built for everyone by everyone, instead of a world built by them for them, and understand every day that it's fundamentally better.

Everyone calls for guillotines, but there's no number of guillotines you can build that will get us closer to a better world. If you hate these people, build thing libraries, plant food forests, create shared pantries and free thing dispensaries. Channel that anger into building a world where guillotines are unnecessary.

Guillotines don't make them afraid. Us building a world without them is what they really fear.

https://crimethinc.com/2019/04/08/against-the-logic-of-the-guillotine-why-the-paris-commune-burned-the-guillotine-and-we-should-too

FBI agents reading Kolektiva right now.: