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.”

  • bryophile@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    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

    • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • androgynouscloudmoon@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        “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?

        • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

          • androgynouscloudmoon@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.

            • muq-raker@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              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.

              • androgynouscloudmoon@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                15 hours ago

                Yeah I fully agree with this, I just got heated because the other guy seemed to imply that anarchism was inherently doomed because humanity is naturally violent or whatever, it’s a horribly nihilistic worldview.