Billie Eilish joined Bad Bunny in speaking out against ICE during her acceptance speech at the Grammy Awards, slamming the organization after winning song of the year for “Wildflower.”
The singer was bleeped as she said “fuck ICE,” giving strong commentary during the speech. “Thank you so much. I can’t believe this. Everyone else in this category is so amazing. I love you so much,” she said, standing next to her brother Finneas. “I feel so honored every time I get to be in this room. As grateful as I feel, I honestly don’t feel like I need to say anything but that no one is illegal on stolen land. And, yeah, it’s just really hard to know what to say and what to do right now, and I feel really hopeful in this room, and I feel like we just need to keep fighting and speaking up and protesting, and our voices really do matter, and the people matter, and fuck ICE. That’s all I’m going to say. Sorry. Thank you so much.”
Removed by mod
Wtf wht removed by moderator, what a joke censorship platform is this
True, but still some land is significantly more stolen than others.
Like what
Name a culture which hasn’t stolen land or had slaves
What? This is getting confusing.
Yes probably all cultures had slaves or stole land at some point in time. (This is true, depending on whether you see cultures as fixed in time: are current day Egyptians of the same culture as ancient Egyptians? When does culture “restart”? Who decides this?)
Let me ask you: is there no difference between let’s say a Native American claiming his land was stolen (hundreds of years ago and his people massacred, and he’s now a second rank citizen on his own land), and for instance a white European claiming his land was stolen (by the Romans? During WW2? I would not know what he means honestly, especially because he is now part of a nation state, a first class citizen).
Yes all land was stolen. But this is not an absolute. You wouldn’t agree the Native American had his land quite a bit more relatively stolen?
My point is you can’t invalidate the claim of native peoples just by going “meh, so what? All land was technically stolen at some point”. Some people can make a more legitimate claim their land was stolen than others.
Inuit
Nope.
and how do you rank the ‘stoleness’ of land?
Can’t really rank it, it’s a subjective statement. My gut tells me there’s a difference between for instance a Native American stating his land is stolen and a, just an example, white European stating his land is stolen.
My gut thinks there IS a way to rank these statements, even though it’s technically true all land was stolen at some point and the whole nation state fairy tale is completely arbitrary.
That’s just my gut though, it doesn’t agree with genocide
I can rank it, but it would depend on the context and the evidence involved.
I used to work professional in land policy. Land ownership is ultimately about the legal system and who posses the ‘deed’ to the land. Governments are the ones who control this ultimately. They can create, take, and steal land via the law. And the law defines all these things. Proof of theft requires proof of previous ownership, as a starting point. To prove that land was stolen you’d have to prove original ownership, and the series of events that lead to it’s loss of ownership and their illegality or illegitimacy.
and the further back you go the messier it gets. land records from the past 50 years are quite clear. land records from 200+ years ago, not so much. It’s basically impossible to prove any of it if say, the town or municipality in dispute, had it’s records destroyed in a fire or somesuch, perhaps even maliciously.
Plenty of Europeans have land-conflicts that go back centuries and involve murder. There are also conflicts amongst indigenous people’s over land right and land use and tribal recognition. It’s vastly more complex than ‘hey white people give us our land back because your ancestors stole it from our ancestors’. My ancestors arrived in America in the 1910/20s, personally, and never left the area of the original 16th century colonies, many of which were established with peaceful agreements of the natives and were not stolen at all.
“No-one is illegal on stolen land” is a staunchly pro-immigration, anti-colonial, and anti-borders statement made by people in anarchist-adjacent circles. You’re arguing about laws and legal processes that people with this sentiment hate and seek to abolish. Everything you’ve stated here is correct, but in this context it doesn’t matter, isn’t it pedantic?
If you want to feel your deep profound anarchist liberation feelings, go right ahead.
I’m not an anarchist and I’m don’t care about idealistic sentimentality. I care about reality, and yes, if your world view is that ‘reality is bad and must be abolished’ then yeah, I suppose you’d be pretty annoyed at someone who was pointing out that reality to you.
I’m not an anarchist, something that was obvious from how I spoke about them like an outsider, but this is such a disingenuous comment I’m gonna ignore that bit.
You do not care about reality – this is made obvious from your belief that property laws are some sort of sane and natural order, instead of being hackneyed together by generations of rich landowners with their own short-sighted, trite, and nonsensical goals. The violence committed by these freaks for more oil or sharecropping land or some other garbage is actually the opposite of normal humanity, unless you live somewhere where your neighbors shoot each other because they were bored and wanted a second house. You see, within civilization, humans generally share spaces. There no borders in the household or passport stations in the farmers’ market. Anarchism is the belief that this can be expanded all the way to the international level; the comparatively simpler idea expressed by this celebrity is that there shouldn’t be a military dedicated to attacking random people who are just trying to live in society because they’re “illegal”, especially considering this society is already built on attacking random people and the attackers, by their own definitions, are actually already here illegally. The fact that this simple slogan pisses you off is a genuinely fascinating concept and makes me think you aren’t too happy to abide by the social contract.
I’m sure there are folks who consider themselves anarchists but haven’t actually considered the philosophy in a functioning form once state and property is abolished. I’m not trying to be rude, I just mostly see anarchism talked about in the context of attempting to exist within this society. I don’t think it would be so simple, for anarchism to exist even though one generation there would have to be constant adjustments and decisions and established norms and practices that allow society to move forward. I don’t mean to say that it isn’t worth doing, I think it could eventually be a better world but it would be generations from now and even then there will still be the need to protect and keep society healthy, like an ecosystem there needs to be some oversight in place for the habitat and members of it to all exist in some equilibrium, not everyone is going to agree on things all the time.
So how does that make “illegal” immigration a bad thing? Or are you violently agreeing?
Yes no more borders
all “owned” land is
You can’t meaningfully own something that existed before you and will continue to exist after you.
The concept of private property, especially in regards to land ownership is spurious to ridiculous.
Now your breath you own. Your spoken words you own. Thoughts, too. They will all die with you and can’t exist without you. Though, ownership here isn’t implying originality of any kind. You can own thoughts that you did not originate. That’s how cults spread.
Think of an apple trying to claim ownership of the apple tree from which it hangs.
So philosophically, I agree with you, but how would the logistics of land use work without something similar to ownership?
Like, how would you decode who gets to live where?
everyone would magically self determine that and there wouldn’t be any conflict because there would be endless abundance and we would all be endlessly happy forever.
the earth being a finite resource is a social construct of our minds, clearly.
That’s a good question with endless possible answers.
I can’t speak for everyone. But I like the idea of egalitarian intentional communities, as a demsoc. No representatives or charismatic leaders. Smaller communities with direct democracy I think would be ideal. A place where you know everyone’s name and vice versa.
In the 1800s in USA, people were simply traveling around freely by horse, discovering new places, and if they found a place they liked by a lake or river by a beautiful waterfall or a place with great agricultural potential, they would just plant themselves there and build a house without having to ask permission from anyone. Later in the 1800s the government swooped in and decided the government owned everything and made all those people pay the government to live anywhere 😠
They discovered shit. The land was already discovered and inhabited by people.
Well yeah that too. Indigenous people didn’t have to pay anyone to live anywhere either.