#rather than anything direct or that gives the concept of 'settlers' the time or defense it deserves

[nothorses]

i see you've reblogged a very weird and racist post about what it means to be a "settler" and i would encourage you to engage more deeply with Native & Indigenous thinkers! "settler" isn't just like a static inborn unchangeable biological fact. it's a specific relationship to land, nature, governance, Indigenous people, etc

(For other people's reference, this is the post in question)

I 100% agree with you that the definition of "settler" the article is discussing is not the like, actual definition- particularly in the context of indigenous/native American people (at least that I've read anything by). I think it's a shitty and inherently flawed understanding of the word, it doesn't serve anyone, and my understanding of the article is that it's critiquing the same thing: a critically, and perhaps intentionally, flawed understanding of a word that has a very different meaning. (They use phrasing like "under this definition of the word" or similar whenever they mention it, and allude to the fact that actual indigenous/native American folks are being left out of the conversation).

I think the article could have (and should have) been clearer about this point, because it feels like it's never very direct in this, and that absolutely does leave room for some people to interpret this as "the concept of 'settlers' is antisemitic".

What I'm picking up on could just be nothing, but, imo, it's really not absent from the author's intent. It seems more like they were focused on the issue being discussed ("the way this term is being misused hurts Jewish people, please think about the flaws in your understanding of this word") and didn't think it was as important to define a more accurate understanding of the word where it might invite a debate about semantics- or maybe because they don't have a solid enough alternative understanding to provide.

I don't think it's entirely fair to jump from "author critiques flawed understanding of settlers" to "author argues that the concept of settlers is inherently harmful", and I think the perspective they're offering is a very real and important one to hear out. I'll add that I've personally seen this misunderstanding of "settler" trotted out in legitimately harmful ways, in real life; I very recently had a supervisor use this definition of "settler" in staff training, multiple times, in a program that prides itself on cultivating real connections with local tribes to inform their curriculum, to imply that everyone's ultimate goal should be to leave this land and go back to our "ancestral homelands" (when presented with the idea that some people just don't have any way of knowing where that is, she suggested "dreaming about your past lives" and, failing that, shrooms).

But like, I can also very much see where they're not actually making the effort to actively defend the very real concept underneath the common misunderstanding of it, and how that can- and probably has- caused harm. And I'm sorry if you or anyone else has felt that harm.

I also invite disagreement and discussion here, and I recognize that my perspective is likely to have blind spots given I'm neither Jewish nor indigenous.