this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2025
61 points (85.9% liked)

The Right Can't Meme

263 readers
1 users here now

Intro

Hi this is a replica of the subreddit of the same name. Small disclaimer: I never intended to be the creator or moderator here, I just was sick of waiting for someone else to do it. :)

Rules

  1. Right (or at least non-left) content only. Satire content will likely be removed
  2. Similar rules for comments. The topic is mocking right wing memes. This is NOT a space for political debate.
  3. Reposts from other sources are inevitable, however try to avoid reposting content that's already here

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
ora@lemmy.ml
61
Surprise! It's both! (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 weeks ago by Sarcasmo220@lemmy.ml to c/therightcantmeme@lemmy.ml
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Alt text: The top panel has a button on the left is labeled "We live on stolen land" and a button on the right labeled "Borders are just imaginary lines." The panel beneath it has a picture of a man labeled as "The Left" wiping off sweat, unable to choose.

A family member of mine who is full MAGA shared this meme with me. The Right does not seem to understand that while land cannot be truly owned, it can be in use by people, and other people can forcefully steal it from them.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago

while land cannot be truly owned, it can be in use by people,

What can be "truly owned", and what does that entail?

If somethinɡ is merely "in use" by someone, can it be stolen from the user?

What is stealing? Doesn't stealing, as we intuitively understand it, presuppose (depriving someone of) ownership?

Let's say we find ourselves in this situation: you've loaned a book from the library, and someone stole it. Intuitively we might say the book was stolen from you. But that's mainly because it was temporarily associated with you; you didn't really own it, the harm for you is lesser than it would be if a book you bought was stolen, and more substantial harm affects the library that legally owns the book.

The book is stolen from the library. That's bad for the library. The land is stolen from...? Who is that bad for?

The analogy can only go so far, of course. The actual details of how Native Americans'(?) land was stolen include stuff like

Past treaties that had transferred land ownership employed a wide range of unethical or illegal tactics. Clauses, written in English but never mentioned to the Native signers, might appear in the “official” document.

Illegitimate “chiefs” also signed treaties. The Creek complained bitterly in 1825 that the Treaty of Indian Springs, which sold virtually all of the Tribe’s remaining land, had been signed by individuals not authorized to make such a sale. The Federal Government’s negotiators were well aware of this. The Tribe’s senior leaders had refused to sell and left the negotiations. After the senior leadership had left, the negotiators turned to the few remaining minor chiefs and persuaded them to sign the treaty.

https://www.cmich.edu/research/clarke-historical-library/explore-collection/explore-online/native-american-material/native-american-treaty-rights/land-transfers

Which is all basically theft through deception and similar. But to judge it that way we do have to already assume that the Natives owned the land that they were then cheated out of...