I’m gonna upvote you both even if inevitable it will result in all of us being downvoted again.
I get it- race relations is a complex topic, it is complicated further because there can be sensitivities to “being spoken for” where groups have historically had others “speak on their behalf” and take their voices. Wether intentions are good or bad- I get that, and that there can especially be a sensitivity when the one speaking for a group isn’t of that group, doubly so when they come from a group that historically repressed said group. It’s complicated- but without 100,000 words to dissect it- there are differences between being an ally or just a good person who speaks up when they see wrong, and being someone who perpetuates a cycle of “speaking for” others. If you see wrong and you are in a position to offer aid, that’s generally the right thing to do. There are exceptions and caveats galore- but I get where you are coming from and I think it’s a good place.
Meanwhile England: 2500 B.C, "This is Iberian (?) Land." to the Beaker People. 500 B.C. "This is Beaker People Land." to the Celts. 46 A.D. this is Celtic Land." to the Romans. 500 A.D. "This is Roman Land (sort of)." to the Anglo Saxons. 800 A.D. "This is Anglo Saxon Land." to the Danes (NE England). 1066 A.D. "This is Danish / Anglo Saxon Land.", to the Normans.
Pre 2500 BCE, "This is land of the dragons. Oh... you want to live here? OK we can be neighbors, I.. huh, we have to leave? Why? You said so? Srsly? Y'know what... no no, I'm not going to engage. Thus place is REALLLY haunted by stuff and I've been wanting an excuse to leave. Right so.. don't forget to sacrifice to the bog monsters every spring, good luck." (Flies away, refuses to elaborate)
All land is native land to someone if we go far enough back. It gets very complicated and we have to ask who has the rights to land- if we say no one has any rights to land, the point becomes a bit moot. That said- in America, armed conflict over native land lasted into the 21st century and conflicts, broken treaties and promises, and wrongs continue to be done. What’s past is fairly recent past and it isn’t like native oppression or suffering is “behind us.”
So it is a complicated topic and a huge mess to unravel. Once you conclude a land is native land- what next? That’s the question. If everyone agreed and acknowledged it- what next? Give it all back? What if the resources that were taken and things destroyed? What of the things built? What if the people removed from the direct wrong who did no direct wrong?
What about what the natives want? “Native” people are people- not all feel the same, want the same things, see the same way. Who speaks for “the natives” in this whole thing? What if there are people native or otherwise who don’t like the way things go, what if things get violent and we have a new cycle of hate where people feel robbed of their land and such? There are a lot of questions but ultimately- what next? That’s what most people can’t answer. How do we sort through who gets what and what each wrong is worth, asses a value to every life and all the culture and potential lost and weigh that against the lives tied up in this land today? It’s a mess, and it is easy to get indignant and high and mighty, but once everyone nods and agrees- what is the plan? That’s the hard part- even discussing it is too much for most people to handle.
I get it- race relations is a complex topic, it is complicated further because there can be sensitivities to “being spoken for” where groups have historically had others “speak on their behalf” and take their voices. Wether intentions are good or bad- I get that, and that there can especially be a sensitivity when the one speaking for a group isn’t of that group, doubly so when they come from a group that historically repressed said group. It’s complicated- but without 100,000 words to dissect it- there are differences between being an ally or just a good person who speaks up when they see wrong, and being someone who perpetuates a cycle of “speaking for” others. If you see wrong and you are in a position to offer aid, that’s generally the right thing to do. There are exceptions and caveats galore- but I get where you are coming from and I think it’s a good place.
So it is a complicated topic and a huge mess to unravel. Once you conclude a land is native land- what next? That’s the question. If everyone agreed and acknowledged it- what next? Give it all back? What if the resources that were taken and things destroyed? What of the things built? What if the people removed from the direct wrong who did no direct wrong?
The Ojibwe will just have to deal with it.