No worries! I know you didn't mean anything negative. To my knowledge, over here, many people generally agree with Red Clarion's analysis, and see it as a worthwhile org to read. I agree that it wasn't the main point of discourse, and I could be wrong, but I do believe RC's response has had some influence on how people see FRSO's take on settler-colonialism, hence my desire to put both out in the open.
Personally, I see RC as about 70% right. Sometimes they are overly critical, sometimes they are a bit disconnected, but they do tend to at least highlight genuine problems. I agree that FRSO's take on settler-colonialism is pretty poor, I understand where it comes from but it oversimplifies the class struggle and as a consequence does more harm than good by minimizing the real and continuous impact of settler-colonialism in the US.
I don't entirely disagree with the idea that Red Clarion's critique is flawed due to not being an org proper, but these two articles are the main points of contention being brought up on this post, so I figured it would be helpful for me to link them so those unfamiliar can read up on it.
Worth noting that Red Clarion generally considers FRSO to be one of the better US orgs, but is generally negative on the present state of orgs in the US, both theoretically and strategically.
I've found the quality of my study went up dramatically when I started taking notes in my phone whenever a new concept came up, and trying to rewrite it in my own words. It helps you engage with the text more, not just drilling it into memory.
Gotcha, I'll keep that in mind, thanks.