90% of Native people in the Americas died from disease.

This is a lie used to justify colonialism. Our ancestors didn't die of disease, they died of slavery, removal, war, and famine. I want to make a quick thread about how to argue against this 90% narrative that many believe. First, as I always say, we have to discuss Native nations and not Natives as racialized others. In D/Lakota history, there was no event of disease that killed 90% of our people. There was one smallpox wave in the 1770s-80s that killed 80% of northern plains Dakota people.

Here is a thread on the distinction between settlers and arrivants. The question is a good question, and one which many people don't have an answer for. Usually the question facilitates misunderstandings of settler-colonialism that should be cleared up. So we'll do that here.

https://twitter.com/ashaxchandra/status/1234554320500248576

Settlers are people who live with sovereignty and permanence in a nation that is colonized. Settlers displace people and participate in the elimination of Indigenous peoples' and our lifeways, cosmovisions, philosophies, etc. in the colony / settler-state.

After the explosion of the racist tweet by Vice Writer, a tweet by a 100 follower anarchist has exploded. In this thread, I will be giving a long-winded and boring explanation of my problems with anarchism in regards to Native issues.

In short; I like hierarchies. Before we get to the Native issues, we first have to address general issues. The general disagreement between Marxists and anarchists comes in the definition of a state. A Marxist defines the state through class analysis and determines a state is necessary in oppressing classes.

I think most settlers don’t understand the role they play in settler states. Other than establishing markets and serving as labor to some capacity, their main role is to act as soldiers in the fight against Black and Native people. Châteauguay and Ferguson demonstrate this. When the Mercier Bridge was blocked during the Oka Crisis, and settlers were unable to access Montréal, they rioted. These riots had multiple purposes. They were filled with vitriolic hate towards Indians. They pushed the state to act further against the Kanien’kehá:ka people.

In response to this I've had some people say how their party (CPC, PSL, FRSO) actually *does* support Indigenous states, and that I'm wrong. Since I was specifically talking about the first two parties when I made this, I disagree. Will explain my position below if ppl care

https://twitter.com/mors_lakota/status/1122246136599678976

I've already spent the time to point out my disagreements with the PSL's entire single paragraph on "self-determination" for Native people. A lot of my same disagreements that I have with the PSL apply to the other socialist organizations in the US or Canada.

On Chile and the refusal of loans as sanctions; Many people have heard that oft quoted line about Nixon wanting to make Chile's economy scream after the election of Salvador Allende, but I don't think most people know how that was actually done. Here is a short explanation. The economic war against Chile had very little to do with directly sanctioning the country. Instead, the US would simply withdraw its aid and refuse loans at a staggering rate. Let's look at some numbers.

Periodization of the South, Removal, and slavery:

In the US, despite knowing better, we think that the US is an old country. What this serves to obscure is the unbelievably fast expansion of settlement and slavery throughout the history of the US. Here we will look at the South.

https://twitter.com/andrea_lakota/status/1102052144713093121

What I seek to make clear here is the fact that the “Deep South” and “South” in general, as we think of it today, had barely existed by the time the Civil War (CW) had started. This idea of “Southern culture” as hyper-distinct from “Northern culture” at the time was a myth.

I wanna tell a story about my personal experience with an Ecuadorian bourgeois family, just to be able to explain to y’all how depraved the nat bourgeoisie is there and everywhere else. Now, I was there cuz I had to do a study abroad 4 my major, and I stayed with an 🇪🇨 family. One moment in particular sticks out in my memory. If y’all remember, the UN was having a conference to promote children drinking breastmilk instead of formula. All the countries in the world were in favor of this declaration, except the US.

Some time ago I complained about leftists being able to explain to u the history of every commie country to have ever (almost) existed, but not be able to explain the history of whatever Indig nation’s land they’re on. And I still feel that way, but I wanna expand on that The reason it *really* makes me angry is because I’ve seen ppl out here talking about Indig nations in sweeping generalities pretending like that’s knowning national histories. No, it’s not, every nation is different. Despite a wider shared history, we all have v dif histories.

Ppl may not know that I speak Italian and follow their politics. Italian politics is currently taking the strangest turn I've ever seen in regards to anti-refugee rhetoric, and I'd like to just inform y'all on it a bit. This turn is decolonization as anti-refugee politics Luigi di Maio of the 5 Star Movement (party), one of the two deputy prime ministers of Italy, has flip flopped all over the place on immigration. Di Maio's party is currently in a coalition with the fascist party called Northern League, and so they're pretty anti-refugee rn.

Ive gotten lots of new followers the past month, so here’s a thread explaining my gender.
Im wíŋkte, one of the 4 genders of Lakota ppl. We’re an accepted gender within (non-colonized) Lakota society, we have specific social roles, ceremonial roles, etc Wíŋkte have a long history in Lakota society. We’ve aided in famous battles, we’ve given famous ppl special names (one of our roles is giving ppl secret names only their family knows), we’ve been active in Sundance and other ceremonies. We’ve also suffered because of colonialism