BLM and settler colonialism
A bunch of people who live in a land that is not their own are fed up with their helplessness and, determined to guide their own destiny, return to their ancestral land to build a country of their own.
Some, like Black Lives Matter, call this "Settler Colonialism."
But is it?
In my opening sentence, I had Liberia in mind: "Liberia began as a settlement of the American Colonization Society (ACS), who believed black people would face better chances for freedom and prosperity in Africa than in the United States[.] ... Between January 7, 1822, and the outbreak of the American Civil War in 1861, more than 15,000 freed and free-born people of color who faced social and legal oppression in the United States, as well as 3,198 Afro-Caribbeans, relocated to the settlement."
Should BLM argue that Liberia is a product of "settler colonialism"? I guess so, given that this is how they describe the desire of the Jews to have a country of their own.
Does BLM rail against Liberia, as it rails against Israel? The record doesn't show it.
Why this double standard? Is it a result of racism? Or of not thinking Liberia is an exercise in "settler colonialism"?
In fact, it's surprising that American blacks would be outraged by "settler colonialism." Just like the rest of us, they are descendants of foreign arrivals, and their ancestors' arrival in chains does not change this fact. One could argue that those who went to Liberia showed more moral grit than adherents of the BLM, who, while condemning "settler colonialism," practice it — just as every non–Native American does.
The history of humanity is one of population movement. Just a few years ago, Europe was swamped by Syrian Muslims fleeing the civil war; boatloads of North Africans seeking a better life in Europe arrive at its shores daily; Mexicans and Central Americans flock to the American border hoping to establish a new home in (or if you will, "settle in," or "colonize") America. None of them has a title to a place in which they are trying to make a home; in that respect, what distinguishes Israelis is that they at least have a solid title to a land in which they live and which they defend.
Does defending what is one's own exemplify "settler colonialism"? Or does coming to a land not one's own to settle in it better fit that definition?
We don't hear BLM condemning what goes on at our southern border as "settler colonialism." If "settler colonialism" bothers BLM, they should vocally condemn the illegals. For that matter, BLM should, looking in a mirror, seriously consider Liberia as a truly moral alternative to their own share of "settler colonialism." But above all, BLM — and others — should stop accusing Israel of what it is guiltless of. Defending what is one's own isn't "settler colonialism" at all.
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.