Submitted by aaaaargZombies in indigenous

I'm kind of fascinated by the way in which some of the discussions on indigeneity have played out recently on Raddle.

One of the things that has really struck me is the way in which indigeneity seems to so frequently be articulated via land rights, controls to freedom of movement and essentialism/reification of racial categories.

Obviously I don't think that reparations to the victims of genocide committed in order to achieve settler colonialism is some sort of anti-white racism but I also don't want to live in world in which everyone has a set way to live and place which they must reside according to their genome.

I think Israel is the cautionary tale for this sort of thinking.

How can Anarchists reconcile these tensions?

I know this is a bit of a can of worms, if you don't have specific thoughts on the issue I'd also be interested on anything that has informed your views. Some of these themes were explored in the brilliant – Nationalism and bolo’bolo and frequently elsewhere in Aragorns work.



You must log in or register to comment.

Kinshavo wrote

I see 2 thing in play here. First, that initiated the whole issue in reddit and bleed it here.

The point imho, is not judging if reparations or return the land are rightfully just or not (even if it involves state/capital mediation or recognition), the point here is to think our Anarchism is universal, or it is desirable to be universal, as in the Utopian World Anarchist Revolution. Indigenous and Native people have all the right to self-determination in their own terms, and this don't escuse them of any traps of what fight against, like state, democracy, army and police, etc.

I do agree the discussion of BIPOC needs to be more profund, but we need to be full antiColonist about it or we will fall for the same mistakes.

The second point in play, would be thinking that tribalism would lead to Nationalism, or even to ethnostates (a aberration imho again to imagine that Indigenous and Native people create ethnostates). This very concept seems white centric, makes a vague reference to things like Bosnia and Serbia war. This whole argument only makes sense to me if you are coming from European examples. Israel, despite of Mizrahi and the migration from African Jews, is a European project, point. There is not antisemitism in acknowledging that Israel was born of European colonization.

Oppressed black and native people don't create ethnostates just to enforce their power, if anything it will be considered self defense. It is like calling up the workers union because they organized against the labor oppression.


aaaaargZombies OP wrote

Hey thanks for the response.

I'm not really talking about why other people aren't anarchists or how we can create "the Utopian World Anarchist Revolution". But explicitly about anarchists supporting things I listed above.

I use Israel as an example because I don't think it's clear cut that Jewish people who left Europe are not indigenous to that region. They are certainly not considered Indigenous in Europe. I suppose there's other options. That after a certain time people either become indigenous to the region they settle in, or cease to be indigenous at all but that's no less problematic.

Oppressed black and native people don't create ethnostates just to enforce their power, if anything it will be considered self defense.

This and the self determination you referenced earlier are literally the founding principles of Israel. My lack of support for Israel is due to the horrors that are involved in creating and maintaining states, not because I think Jewish people are white.

Ultimately I'm reading indigeneity as proxy for "legitimate authority" in a lot of places.


Kinshavo wrote

Maybe I used your post to express some thoughts about the way I see the recent argument here.

For me Anarchism is not a universal philosophy bc of it's very construction and history, maybe one of the challenges is to strip the eurocentric and colonial mindset of it. Sorry if I am repeating myself :\

Anarchist support for contradictory issues is not a new thing, and I it say more of the "anarchist" than from the Anarchist thought in many cases. Like Kropotkin signing the Manifesto of the Sixteen.

Like other user said more eloquently, there are many different people under the umbrella of indigeneity and the cases may differ. There is no space to defend the State, but there is no space to shun Indigenous people for living in a "State" of their choosing.

If anything, this kind of discussion proves the relevance of postcolonial Thinkers to contemporary Anarchism.


aaaaargZombies OP wrote

If anything, this kind of discussion proves the relevance of postcolonial Thinkers to contemporary Anarchism.

Which have you found most useful?


Kinshavo wrote

There are user that can get us schooled in this subject, I particularly have more familiarity with Frantz Fanon and Aimé Césaire, but for more contemporary authors Tequila told me once to check Saidyia Hartman and Achille Mbembe. And their friend M.D.C. is working with those issues too.

I still learning studying this stuff, it's one of the major topics I can truly learn here with the users comments and the shared texts