Hey, I know Twitter is horrible at communicating tone, but I genuinely feel like you're not really engaging me because I've already said that I do not disagree with you that #LandBack would save the planet nor have I argued that you are centering Settlers.

https://twitter.com/MelaninMvskoke/status/1555020239120674816

I don't really know where the disconnect is happening.

My critique is two-fold: a) Survivability is NOT the Settler's highest interest and the assumption that survival "benefits them" assumes a specific ethical and political frame that is not historically adopted by Settlers.

I considered whether to add this because I know it's unpopular and I understand the intent of the Tweet and its follow-ups, but I think this framing is both untrue and politically dangerous and so I wanted to offer this good faith engagement: 🧵

https://twitter.com/MelaninMvskoke/status/1554611650572931072

First, it is untrue, I believe, to the extent that virtually every theorization of #LandBack includes the dismantling of capitalist economies, the ending of settler colonial forms of government, and the attendant ending of other forms of violence like patriarchy or antiblackness.

I am not intimately familiar with it, but skimming a primer on Anzieu just now, it reminds me of some of Felix Guattari's critiques and so I'm sympathetic to them. I disagree with Anzieu on interpretation and systemic silence, however--my patients certainly benefited from it.

https://twitter.com/unpetitobjet/status/1554296609977950209

However, I think the critique of Lacan's "the unconscious is structured like a language," is not necessarily unfounded. I think, somewhat, Lacan's work could be improved with engagement with Peirce's semiotics and an more expansive theory of the sign and signifier.