this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
500 points (92.1% liked)

Comic Strips

22318 readers
2759 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 39 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

The one colonists hate the most:
indigenous lives matter.

[–] MoffKalast@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

It's always ironic to see non-native Americans talk about stopping illegal immigration, like hahaha it's not so funny now is it.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

It's not ironic at all. If someone steals X, it's not ironic for them to not want that X stolen from them; it actually aligns perfectly with their previous mindset: 'I want to have this'.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world -5 points 11 hours ago

But we're all indigenous to Earth.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Tell them to give the land back and they lose their shit.

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 10 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

I don't understand what "give the land back" means. Would you mind explaining it?

There are a lot of poor, oppressed people who live on land their ancestors didn't own. In the US, all Black people and most native Americans don't live within 1000 km of where their ancestors lived 600 years ago. So when land is given back, what happens to the people that currently reside there? Do natives become landlords? Is there ethnic cleansing? Or is it only land where people don't reside? Also, many native cultures didn't even have land ownership, so how do you give land back without forcing them into a western mould?

[–] bearboiblake@pawb.social 5 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

We could just abolish private property rights and accept that no individual or corporation can own land. That would be my preferred solution.

[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

How does that function in practice? Doesn't that just immediately turn into a stupid bullshit version of mad max?

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Commons - land maintained by the people in common - are a very common thing in non-capitalist societies. People in medieval England used to tend their animals on common land and get pissed at people who let their animals graze too much, eventually kicking them out by force if they continued to act selfishly.

Basically, acting selfishly is treated as a crime. Breaking into someone's home to sleep there when there is a vacant home available is selfish. Taking all the computers from the public library to earn respect in the next village over is selfish. Meanwhile doing good is appreciated and means others will do good to you in turn, but by default people are considered deserving of all basic necessities.

You might get a Mad Max scenario if you magically get unguarded commons by fiat. But we live in capitalism where the commons are looted into non-existence by default. For an anticapitalist movement to be successful, it has to guard and maintain its own commons against capitalism, compared to which Mad Maxoids are child's play. If we live in a society where private property can be abolished, we live in a society where the commons can be guarded.

[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

How do you enforce it? How do you prevent enforcers from seizing power if they have a monopoly on violence?

[–] bearboiblake@pawb.social -1 points 5 hours ago

Why would it? Private property only refers to land, we can just centrally manage land use through some system that's fairer than capitalism. It seems like really quite a minor change compared to what I usually advocate for tbh

[–] shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

You would have to overthrow capitalism first. Which would be quite the task in the good old USA.

[–] bearboiblake@pawb.social 2 points 9 hours ago

We need to do that anyways, Capitalism inevitably leads to fascism.

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

It means that it's up to the natives. It sucks for the descendants of settlers, but the alternative, that the descendants of the people it was stolen from keep being oppressed is worse. The natives get to say what happens on their land, and withholding stewardship until there is an alternative that the settlers agree to is perpetuating oppression. Land back means land back.

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 hours ago

I know it's up to the natives, that's why I'm asking. Because if they choose to build an oppressive system then those with power within the new system are the new oppressors to fight, and it would be nice to avoid that.

[–] Bigfishbest@lemmy.world 0 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah forget about sending those squatters back to Europe. We don't fucking want them.

[–] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 0 points 13 hours ago

Oof, but then we're stuck with them!

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's kind of why I like the casino model. Local tribes put here have been buying their land back bit by bit and the casino goers gladly shovel money at them.

I just wish we could rope corporate entities into it. Imagine if casino losses could be a corporate tax writeoff. C-suites would be stumbling onto the floor with the company cards. The overnight wealth distribution would be staggering.

[–] bearboiblake@pawb.social 5 points 14 hours ago

Gambling is a hugely exploitative industry which predominantly negatively impacts the poorest and most vulnerable. Casinos are also a dying business model.