Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

8

Dumai wrote

Gee, sorry. How are you opposing the occupation of native land by Europeans?

By not supporting it? lol

i love how he thinks this is a question of whether or not he likes colonialism rather than a question of what he's actually doing about it

You gonna help us get our land back?

When the revolution starts...

5

theblackcat wrote

what he's actually doing about it

Why, he's posting on reddit about how feminists are icky and white men deserve equality, of course.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

https://archive.fo/4Byuy#selection-2607.0-2611.328

This is where he's told USA is a white supremacist settler colony and gets very defensive.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

You might remember this shitburg from his 'feminists aren't egalitarians like me' comments:

https://old.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/91tpcy/male_anarchists_view_on_feminism/e34t7nu/

Please excuse my raging, I had the misfortune of digging through his post history while responding to him.

3

theblackcat wrote (edited )

The mods on that sub never used to put up with mra bullshit like that, what on Earth happened?

3

retiredshared2 wrote

Reddit siteowners neutered the sub and it went to shit, despite the art at the bottom. I recommend, despite disputes many have with ziq (including me), that everyone advises moving to Raddle. Drama aside, I much prefer the mods and admins here to a team handpicked by the capitalists running Reddit.

3

ziq wrote

The admins banned all the good mods (with one exception), now there's just a bunch of white male freeze peachers left, and they gang up on the only woman left on the mod team.

If she bans an mra or a racist, the bromods undo it and basically laugh in her face. Their meta sub is basically the brocialist commitee. Shitty lawyers that spend hours mounting a defense for all kinds of anarcho-bigots and mansplaining to anyone that objects.

-4

anarchist_critic wrote

Ah, I see the idpols are back.

I don't know this guy you're picking on. Maybe he's as bad as you think. But you idpols are literally driving people to reaction with your personally attacking, hyperbolic BS. If white people are told they are worthless "colonisers" whose suffering doesn't matter because of their "privilege", and men are held personally responsible for the crimes of "masculinity", this produces predictable defensive reactions. It produces racist and sexist reactions in people who aren't necessarily all that bigoted, but who don't like being attacked based on their ascribed group membership. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/14/identity-politics-right-left-trump-racism

Anarchism does not and never has defined people by ascribed attributes or "properties", it defines people as unique beings in open-ended networks who are also composed of multiple forces of becoming. In reducing people to ascribed attributes, idpol is absolutely reactionary. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lupus-dragonowl-against-identity-politics

No borders... except to keep white people out

If you aren't doing what I say then you're part of the problem

Being against something doesn't mean you're against it

White people are "colonisers" and should STFU

Everyone should feel very guilty about shit someone else did 200 years ago

This isn't helping Native peoples in the slightest. It's just helping middle-class college students guilt-trip naive white people into being their footsoldiers.

You're being a bit too literal

Yeah, not everyone likes bandying around of buzzwords and insults.

THIS is how you do anarcho-indigenism: http://www.markfoster.net/struc/i_am_indigenist.pdf Notice the concrete proposal on pp. 12-13 which leads to a Native American autonomous territory without anyone "going back to Europe" or even being kicked out of local areas. Notice the close connection between indigenism, ecology, sustainability, and anti-capitalism. (Churchill was part of the anarchist movement of the 1990s/2000s which is now dismissed as "white", and was completely supportive of targeting global summits, corporate chains and so on).

Notice how on p. 11 he dismisses the idea of sending people back to Europe as "the “Great Fear,” the reactionary myth that any substantive native land recovery would automatically lead to the mass dispossession and eviction of individual non-Indian home owners,,, Do all of you really foresee Indians standing out on the piers of Boston and New York City, issuing sets of waterwings to long lines of non-Indians so they can all swim back to the Old World? Gimme a break". He emphasises that land claims target government and corporate holdings. I wonder how he feels about the way settler-colonialism theory now does its utmost to fuel the Great Fear, and hence the reactionary resistance to indigenous self-determination!

Wanna know what anarcha-indigenist Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui thinks of your "decolonial" BS? "The decolonial is an obnoxious fashionable neologism"... we need to get beyond the "indigenous resentment and non-indigenous guilt".

Voices like Churchill's and Cusicanqui's have been pushed aside by middle-class academics of Native American origin, who play a dangerous media game of triggering white defensiveness to "prove" that racism exists, while also leveraging white guilt to support their own agenda of liberal incorporation within the status quo. Not wanting to smash capitalism or western civilisation, they instead raise vague arguments about epistemic privilege, discursive construction of identity, vague historic responsibilities and other issues which feed easily into a reformist agenda of transferring a share of power to themselves, a middle-class elite. (Similar elites within the black, Latin@, gay, feminist, postcolonial, disabled, and other historically marginalised communities are doing exactly the same).

Anyone who knows European history knows that European peasants were dispossessed of their land. Many of those fleeing to America were refugees. For example, Jews persecuted in Eastern Europe, and Irish people fleeing from the potato famine (which was caused by land grabs and monoculture). Once there, they were exploited by the emerging American bourgeoisie. Settler-colonialism on the frontier was used as a safety-valve to reduce labour militancy.

Those who realised their actual interests ended up in "triracial isolate" communities composed of Native Americans, runaway slaves, and poor whites fleeing capitalism. They lived as autonomous zones and neo-tribes in remote areas beyond the elite's reach.

"Race" was invented as a divide-and-rule tactic by the bourgeoisie - to hurt the interests of both black workers and white workers. https://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/21/the-invention-of-the-white-race/

Anarchism is not and has never been about GUILT. Anarchism comes from the id, not the superego. Anarchism is about living freely, not about feeling infinitely responsible for oppressions caused by other people.

If you wanna fight colonialism then start by fighting the ongoing dispossession which is happening RIGHT NOW in West Papua, Brazil, the Niger Delta and Oaxaca. Just because the people there don't have Facebook accounts or the right rhetoric about how triggered they feel by white male ignorance, they get utterly ignored by American anarchists. But they are actual hunter-gatherers and subsistence farmers fighting against being submerged in capitalism. And they are being displaced partly by companies which are based in the US and are easy targets.

Fuck idpol, smash capitalism.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

This has nothing to do with guilt and no one here suggested sending US Europeans back to Europe so you're strawmanning your arse off here.

The plain fact of the matter is that indigenous peoples are still suffering in miserable squalor, still being raped, starved, poisoned, sterilized, imprisoned, shot dead, while the descendants of the europeans that took their land and forced them onto concentration camps are still enjoying the spoils of their genocide today.

And the little land/water they have left CONTINUES to be taken from them at gunpoint by Europeans. Colonization never ended.

-1

anarchist_critic wrote

Oh, and if you don't want to send anyone back to Europe and it isn't about guilt then what's your problem with the statement "I have as much right to inhabit this land as anybody else does, regardless of my ancestor's actions".

1

ziq wrote (edited )

-2

anarchist_critic wrote

OK, four problems.

  1. I don't live in Canada, or any settler-colony.
  2. I don't own any land. Not even a house or apartment.
  3. If I did own my home then chances are, I'd need it as a place to live (doh), and likely I'd have a mortgage, meaning I can't transfer it freely to anyone.
  4. This article is all about how expensive and bureaucratically difficult it is to transfer ownership, so even if you try, the government won't let you.

Also BTW, land ownership as a notion did not exist on "Turtle Island" prior to the arrival of Europeans.

Now answer my question please: If you don't want to send anyone back to Europe and it isn't about guilt then what's your problem with the statement "I have as much right to inhabit this land as anybody else does, regardless of my ancestor's actions"?

-1

anarchist_critic wrote

indigenous peoples are still suffering in miserable squalor, still being raped, starved, poisoned, sterilized, imprisoned, shot dead

Agreed.

while the descendants of the europeans that took their land and forced them onto concentration camps are still enjoying the spoils of their genocide today

Which Europeans? Which spoils?

You'll find that most of the land is owned by the US government and big companies, as Churchill shows. The average white working-class American is getting crumbs from the boss's table at most. Hell, the average income in America is below the cost of living these days.

And the little land/water they have left CONTINUES to be taken from them at gunpoint by Europeans. Colonization never ended

Again, which Europeans?

I'm sure this Reddit guy you've got this vendetta against, is not going around taking people's land and water at gunpoint. Likely the people doing this are pigs. And they're doing it on behalf of (again) the bosses and the government.

So, OK - we hate bosses, the government, and pigs. Anarchists have always hated bosses, the government, and pigs. Conscious white working-class Americans also hate bosses, the government, and pigs. So let's all get together across racial divided and fuck up the bosses, the government, and the pigs. Calling white working-class or even middle-class Americans "colonisers" and telling them to get back in their lane and give up their sense of entitlement to even be on "Turtle Island" is just making enemies you don't need to make.

2

therealmidnite wrote

You're full of shit.

0

anarchist_critic wrote

Wow, we're really in the world of intelligent critique today, aren't we? https://rgambler.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/grahams_hierarchy_of_disagreement-svg.png?w=696 Not even off the bottom rung there, pal.

Meanwhile...

therealmidnite wrote 18 days ago: You know, I prefer Trump. I really do.

Yeah, I'm really a pile of shit compared to a Trump fan like you!

No wonder you argue like Trump. "Loser. Sad."

0

therealmidnite wrote

Oh I'm sorry... you believe yourself "sophisticated". Allow me to modify my statement.

You're full of excrement.

There. That better?