i think the main confusing thing about the article is that it seems to be mainly pointed at Sakai-type Third Worldists who see settler-colonialism as the primary contradiction. frso strongly believes in the progressive potential of the working class, and doesn't believe that categorizing the working class as a "settler working class" on the side of the enemy is correct.
the primary contradiction of our era is imperialism, and that means in order to fight it there needs to be an identification of the imperialists as the enemy and to draw in as many allies as possible to combat the principle enemy. this means that the working class of the united states has a historically progressive role they can play in this struggle against the US monopoly capitalists who maintain the oppression of not only their own workers, but almost all stratas of society of the oppressed nations except the comprador neocolonial puppets.
as all societies are not just a unilateral mode of production but a unity of modes of productions, it is not like no aspects of US society take part in settler-colonialism to this day, but rather that settler-colonialism (specifically as a transitionary period of early capitalism which is characterized by the primary contradiction between settlers and the colonized) is not the defining characteristic of USAmerican society and production.
confusingly, the article is about the marxist definitions of settler-colonialism and "nations" which - while sharing terminology with - is completely different to indigenous and especially Native American ontologies. its aim is at marxist revisionism stating that the white working class is an enemy specifically, which is why it does not approach the topic from an indigenous perspective.
also, these things are subject to change as things develop. i dont take the position that any of this is dogma and am highly interested in correcting mistakes where they are. im curious about peoples thoughts, especially as comrades, and to please not be too harsh if there are points of antagonism.
i agree with this person's assessment at large, although i think the contradiction lies mainly in the communication of what the article is about. granted, communication issues lie primarily with the communicator.
from my reading of the article, it was not meant to be about indigenous struggles, and lacks every dimension of a proper analysis of indigenous struggles. also the tagline makes it sound like something denying indigenous struggles which is also poor form.
i agree with the general tendency i think of the issue people have, which is that if settler-colonialism is going to be written about and published publicly, it should not be as a narrow rebut of a specific claim of a specific tendency of marxist revisionism but should be sufficiently all-encompassing.
thank you!