Why should a dead white rich European man be granted authority over the definition of anarchy? Wouldn't it make more sense to untether anarchy from the grasp of Eurocentrism? To decolonize it and refute its forced attachment to industrial colonialist European civilization?

the anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility. They are the main obstacle which prevents the successes of modern technics from being brought into the service of all, so as to produce general well-being. The anarchists consider the wage-system and capitalist production altogether as an obstacle to progress. But they point out also that the state was, and continues to be, the chief instrument for permitting the few to monopolize the land, and the capitalists to appropriate for themselves a quite disproportionate share of the yearly accumulated surplus of production.

Notice how centered he is on European civilization? Why should the rest of the world be expected to see anarchy through this dead prince's eyes?

depends what you mean by 'tied'

I said it doesn't have to have anything to do with socialism, not that there's no history of socialist anarchism

there is a lot of content to socialism, and we don't need to frame ourselves in its terms

You're kind of making an appeal to authority argument though which makes little sense in an anarchist context. History be damned, anarchy isn't owned by the European left.