Behind them in the photo, they have indigenous "Land Back" signs, whose message, logically, is that non-"indigenous" people (so like, immigrants), should have t

Behind them in the photo, they have indigenous "Land Back" signs, whose message, logically, is that non-"indigenous" people (so like, immigrants), should have their land seized (and be expelled from the Americas? Roll back to 1400?). This just seems like another stupidly controversial position to attach yourself to. Now, practically where I see these "Land Back" signs is at environmental protests opposing e.g. pipelines and mines, all of which may be well and good. The environmentalists that protest alongside these signs don't really take them seriously (like, they don't expect to forfeit their houses). But if you don't mean something, why say it? Maybe I'm too hard on these movements. If they hold out the opportunity of "going Native" for everyone else, then maybe they're ok. I'll acknowledge here that that would be an explicitly assimilationist goal, which "we" aren't supposed to like, but I could actually be ok with that. The key thing is universalism.