> If we decide that White land is a racist concept, which it is, how can we not apply that same reasoning to everyone else
I think there's a pretty obvious difference between referring to land in historical North America as "Native land" and calling it "White land." And the specific label doesn't matter much, you could say "European land" or "colonized land" and the point remains unchanged.
Your comment seems like the standard appeal to "colorblindness," as if one group of people can invade or otherwise oppress another group, actively set up a vastly unequal distribution of resources and freedoms, and then claim that the only way forward is to deliberately ignore the history and even the existence of the different groups. But of course, to ignore those now is to explicitly support the status quo, and the status quo is still dominated by the historical unequal distribution of resources and freedoms between the groups.
I think there's a pretty obvious difference between referring to land in historical North America as "Native land" and calling it "White land." And the specific label doesn't matter much, you could say "European land" or "colonized land" and the point remains unchanged.
Your comment seems like the standard appeal to "colorblindness," as if one group of people can invade or otherwise oppress another group, actively set up a vastly unequal distribution of resources and freedoms, and then claim that the only way forward is to deliberately ignore the history and even the existence of the different groups. But of course, to ignore those now is to explicitly support the status quo, and the status quo is still dominated by the historical unequal distribution of resources and freedoms between the groups.