this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
24 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43917 readers
1036 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It seems Ben and Jerry's may be next in the firing line after they made waves with a provocative 4th of July tweet claiming the US is on stolen Indigenous land. Could we witness a downturn similar to Bud Light?

Or is their irresistibly good ice cream strong enough to keep their ship afloat?

Edit: Side note - in the absence of B&J, what ice cream are you turning to? I’m in AUS. So B&J was a game changer. Not anything else like it that I’m aware of.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Stan@lemmywinks.com 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Hasn’t every land been stolen from someone else ten times over since the beginning of recorded history?

[–] heartlessevil@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I imagine you didn't intend this because it's reprehensible but you are defending genocide right now. Take a minute and rethink your life.

[–] Stan@lemmywinks.com 0 points 1 year ago

How am I defending it. It’s terrible when anyone does it.

[–] Methylman@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I think what you say is fair if not true - one difference (and I'm sure there are more) is these weren't lands acquired by conquest/military subjugation, but rather by agreement with the landholding populations to live in peace. What actually happened was the indigenous populations were lied to in one way or another such that the European nations never held up their side of the bargains because of ambiguity in the agreements in addition to Europeans plainly lying about what was being agreed to.

I think this is evident in the ways the Canadian Reconciliation Calls to Action use language such as "call upon the Government of Canada...to jointly develop with Aboriginal peoples a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation...[which] would build on the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Treaty of Niagara of 1764, and reaffirm the nation-to-nation relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown"

Essentially these lands were never legally taken which is why the indigenous groups can/should lay claim to them. That makes this scenario different than a group being displaced by military conquest (which is technically recognized as a legal, albeit cruel, mechanism for displacing people).