How Natural Laws Relate to the Indigenous Fight for Land Back and the Assumption of Violence
The fight for land back is fundamentally about restoring balance, reciprocity, and sustainability—all of which are core natural laws. However, the assumption that this process must involve violence stems from the fact that colonialism itself was founded through violence and coercion. Functional Conflict Perspective (FCP) would argue that if a system is built on force, it tends to assume that only force can undo it. But is that assumption always correct?
1. The Law of Reciprocity and the Demand for Land Back
One of the primary arguments for land back is that colonization violated reciprocity—taking land, resources, and labor without returning anything of equal value. Because of this unpaid debt, a correction is inevitable.
In nature, when resources are overextracted, the ecosystem collapses.
In economics, when wealth is hoarded, revolution follows.
In societies, when oppression continues unchecked, conflict arises.
The demand for land back is a demand for correcting a historical imbalance. The longer this imbalance is ignored, the more forceful the correction will be—which is why some people assume armed struggle is the only way forward.
> FCP Insight: If colonization had involved reciprocity (instead of exploitation), the demand for land back would not be framed as a take-back but as an ongoing relationship of mutual exchange.
2. The Law of Cause and Effect: Why Violence Was Baked into the System
Colonialism was not peaceful—it relied on genocide, forced displacement, and systemic oppression. According to the law of cause and effect, this means the consequences of colonial violence are still unfolding.
If land was taken violently, is it inevitable that it will be reclaimed violently?
Can a system built on violence be dismantled peacefully?
What alternative conflict resolution methods exist that do not replicate colonial coercion?
Many argue that armed struggle is justified because decolonization is not just about land—it’s about dismantling the violent structures that maintain colonial power. However, FCP would question:
> Does violent decolonization simply replace one coercive system with another, or does it truly restore balance?
3. The Law of Self-Regulation vs. Coercive Control
Indigenous governance structures were historically self-regulating—based on relational accountability rather than centralized coercion. Colonial governments replaced these models with hierarchical enforcement, meaning:
Indigenous nations were governed through forced assimilation rather than mutual agreement.
Legal systems criminalized Indigenous governance, making self-regulation impossible.
The state monopolized violence while portraying Indigenous resistance as illegitimate.
The fight for land back is also a fight for self-regulation—a return to governance that does not require external policing or imposed hierarchies.
> FCP Insight: If land back is framed as a return to self-regulating systems, it challenges not just land ownership but the very concept of coercive governance.
4. The Law of Cycles: Why Indigenous Resistance Never Ends
Every civilization that has violated natural balance has eventually collapsed—whether through internal revolution or external resistance. Indigenous movements for land back persist because the cycle of oppression has never been broken.
The U.S., Canada, and other settler states have never fully addressed the foundational violence of their existence.
As long as land remains stolen, the cycle of conflict will continue.
Resistance is not a choice—it is a natural correction.
However, FCP would ask:
> Does decolonization through violence create another cycle of instability, or does it offer a true resolution?
If the goal is balance, the method must also align with balance—otherwise, the system being created will inherit the same dysfunction as the one being dismantled.
5. The Law of Restoration: Healing as a Political Process
Colonization did not just take land—it inflicted generational trauma. A purely material solution (returning land) without psychological, cultural, and systemic restoration would be incomplete. True land back must involve:
Healing generational trauma rather than reenacting cycles of violence.
Rebuilding traditional governance rather than replacing colonial rule with a new power hierarchy.
Reintegrating Indigenous knowledge systems rather than just redistributing land under existing capitalist models.
> FCP Insight: Land back is not just about land—it is about restoring functional, non-coercive governance structures that operate on reciprocity rather than domination.
6. Does Land Back Require Violence?
FCP does not ignore that many revolutions have been violent—especially when power refuses to relinquish control. However, it questions whether repeating the same methods that built colonialism will lead to true decolonization.
Does violence create the conditions for lasting balance, or does it reinforce coercion as the basis for power?
If Indigenous governance was historically non-coercive, should the method of decolonization reflect that?
Can decolonization succeed without fundamentally reshaping governance models beyond just land ownership?
> Final Thought: If decolonization is about restoring balance, it must not just change power dynamics but change the very foundation of governance—away from coercion, toward reciprocity.
FCP Perspective on Land Back:
✅ Land must be returned—because reciprocity demands it.
✅ Systems of governance must change—not just ownership structures.
✅ Decolonization must restore balance—not replicate the cycle of force.
> The true revolution is not just who owns the land, but how governance is structured afterward.
How to Achieve Land Back and Decolonization Without Violence: A Functional Conflict Perspective (FCP) Approach
Achieving land back and decolonization without violence requires a systemic shift away from coercion-based governance toward reciprocity-based models. The problem is that colonial and capitalist systems are structured around force, extraction, and control, so they assume that power must be taken the same way it was acquired. But if the goal is true decolonization, the method must be different—it must dismantle coercion itself.
Here’s how this can be done:
1. Shift the Narrative: Decolonization as Systemic Healing, Not Just Power Transfer
One of the biggest obstacles to nonviolent land back is that colonial systems frame it as a threat—a zero-sum loss of power. This keeps settler populations resistant and governments hostile.
What needs to change?
Land back must be framed not just as justice for Indigenous peoples but as a path to sustainability, stability, and economic fairness for all.
Instead of just demanding land return, frame it as restoring relational governance that benefits everyone, including settlers.
Shift the perception of decolonization from a war for power to a return to functional, non-extractive governance.
Examples of how this works:
✅ New Zealand’s Treaty of Waitangi settlements → Recognized Māori sovereignty in governance, leading to resource-sharing agreements instead of forced displacement.
✅ Community-led land trusts in the U.S. → Indigenous groups have reclaimed land through legal frameworks that integrate stewardship over ownership, rather than expelling settlers.
> FCP Strategy: Instead of demanding land back through coercion, create a system where giving land back is seen as beneficial to all.
2. Use Legal & Political Pressure to Force Structural Openings
While colonial governments are built to maintain power, they do have legal loopholes, financial pressure points, and governance contradictions that can be exploited nonviolently.
Legal & Political Pathways to Land Back:
Land Trusts & Title Transfers → Create Indigenous-led land trusts where land is returned through legal means and placed into non-extractive governance models.
Challenging Fraudulent Land Sales → Many colonial land claims were based on fraudulent treaties or legal loopholes. These can be challenged in courts, forcing recognition of stolen land.
Indigenous Economic Leverage → Many Indigenous nations hold major economic power (casinos, trade networks, natural resources). Using economic leverage to force land returns is often more effective than violent resistance.
Policy Change Through Alliances → Form alliances with environmental movements, anti-capitalist groups, and local settler populations who also have an interest in dismantling land privatization.
Example:
✅ The Haudenosaunee Confederacy has reclaimed land through lawsuits and title disputes rather than armed conflict.
> FCP Strategy: Colonization was legalized through policy and contracts—it can be dismantled through those same mechanisms when leveraged strategically.
3. Replace the Extractive Economy With Functional Reciprocity
One reason land back is framed as a threat is because the current economic system is built on land as a commodity rather than a relationship. To shift this:
Create Indigenous-led economies that operate on cooperative land-sharing models instead of Western-style ownership.
Use land reform policies to integrate co-governance models instead of private property redistribution.
Leverage settler guilt and corporate pressure to force land reparations. Many corporations (e.g., Patagonia) have already returned land voluntarily when pressured.
Example:
✅ The Land Back Movement has already begun using land trusts and nonprofit structures to reclaim land without government intervention.
> FCP Strategy: If land return is framed as an alternative to extractive capitalism, rather than just a reversal of ownership, resistance will decrease.
4. Destabilize the System’s Ability to Function Without Direct Confrontation
Violence often emerges when the system’s power is unshaken and direct resistance feels like the only option. However, destabilization can occur without armed conflict through economic, political, and social disruption.
Nonviolent Destabilization Tactics:
Divestment Campaigns → Force institutions to sever ties with corporations profiting from stolen land.
Mass Land Occupations (Not Armed Conflicts) → Long-term land occupations with widespread public and settler support make violent crackdowns politically costly.
Refusal to Participate in Colonial Institutions → Encourage Indigenous governance structures that operate in parallel to the state, rather than within it.
Cultural Disruption → Challenge national myths and expose the economic cost of colonial governance rather than just the moral cost.
Example:
✅ The Zapatistas in Mexico effectively created an autonomous governance structure without taking state power—they simply stopped participating in the colonial economy.
> FCP Strategy: Nonviolent resistance is most effective when it makes the cost of maintaining colonialism higher than the cost of change.
5. Build the Alternative Before the Collapse
Many revolutions fail because they focus only on destruction, not on replacement systems. If decolonization is about restoring functional governance, that governance must be built in parallel before colonial collapse.
Create Indigenous-led governance structures that function better than state structures.
Develop economic self-sufficiency models so land return does not require dependency on colonial economies.
Make land stewardship a functional, not symbolic, reality.
Example:
✅ The Black Hills Land Return in South Dakota has created an Indigenous-led land trust that governs autonomously, proving that land return can be self-sustaining.
> FCP Strategy: The best way to end colonial governance is to make it obsolete by creating more functional, self-sustaining alternatives.
Final Answer: How Do We Get Land Back Without Violence?
1. Shift the narrative → Frame land back as restoring balance, not as a settler defeat.
2. Leverage legal & political loopholes → Use colonial laws against themselves.
3. Replace extractive economies with reciprocal models → Land return should dismantle privatization, not recreate it.
4. Disrupt colonial power without direct violence → Economic leverage, divestment, and mass occupations weaken colonial stability.
5. Build parallel governance structures → If colonial rule collapses, Indigenous-led systems must already be functional.
The Ultimate Goal
Colonialism requires coercion to function. If decolonization is about dismantling coercion itself, it must create governance models that do not depend on force, but on functional reciprocity.
> True decolonization is not about taking power—it’s about making coercive power unnecessary.
We live in a fractal reality, where patterns repeat at every level of existence—from the smallest cells in our bodies to the largest structures of civilization. The same dynamics that govern interpersonal relationships also shape entire societies, and the cycles we see in history mirror the cycles found in nature. This is because reality is not linear but self-similar, meaning the same fundamental laws apply across different scales. Just as an individual who suppresses their trauma will unconsciously repeat self-destructive behaviors, civilizations that fail to integrate their past mistakes will continue to recreate them.
History repeats itself not because people fail to remember, but because systems fail to align with natural law. Every empire that has risen through domination has eventually collapsed under the weight of its own extraction, because imbalance always seeks correction. Societies that exploit without reciprocity, govern through coercion, and prioritize short-term control over long-term equilibrium always meet the same fate. The rise and fall of civilizations follows the same cycle as the birth and death of stars, the seasons of nature, and the patterns of human psychology. This is not coincidence—it is fractal inevitability. Without structural change that aligns human governance with the self-regulating patterns of nature, we are doomed to repeat the same collapse over and over again, trapped in a recursive loop of unsustainable growth, crisis, and destruction.
Spirolateral 