Submitted by lettuceLeafer in indigenous (edited )

With most anti racists things most anarchists on this site talk about the poor idea of negotiating with the state to get them to repress poc less. For instance the response to police brutality and systemic racism is not to advocate for defunding the police or getting nice therapist cops. Its burn police precincts down, fight the polce in the street, dont call the cops, support vulnerable people in ways they don't need the cops.

Any attempt at anarchist to try and convince poc people to protest for reforming the police or begging the USA to be less racist is derided. What is special about indigenous people and land back that the naritive is that the best anti racist strategy is to protest against the USA and have indigenous people to try to convince the genocidal colonizers to give them land or reparations? Like most of the people running the US government hate indigenous people. Trying to convince genociders to give autonomy to the group they are genociding seems like a dead end tactically.

This question is pretty important bc for most indigenous people on reservations life is a struggle to survive. Why is the most advocated tactic for indigenous people seem to fundamentally reformist unlike most other responses from raddle to other injustices of the world.

Considering the other issues I would expect the response and tactical ideas for indigenous groups in the US to be like "defraud, robe and scam settlers to get the money you need to survive. Don't ask for reparations take the money and wealth u need to survive. use this fiscal advantage to buy their past ancestral land and leave the reservation or just squat on the land." Just generally applying anarchist methods for groups to gain autonomy and live lives where the state had less control. While keeping in mind the specific goals and challenges of an indigenous person or group.

The state control function is very important as the state control and forcing reliance of indigenous people on reservations on the government for food and housing is essential for them suppressing indigenounce people and removing their culture from the face of the earth. So, shouldn't the response for this try to rely less on state control not more? I feel like if advocating for any other marginalized group asking their oppressors to oppress them in a nicer way was advocated for it would be derided. But for land back and reparations its ok?

So I feel like I'm missing something. To be clear fuck the redditors and people on raddle shaming indigenous people from taking subsidies. If subsidies are available I think anyone should take them. Though, I think advocating for politicians to give out subsidies isntn a very good strategy in almost all situations.

I'm not trying to say I have the answers for indigenous groups as tactics have to be individualized but I just don't understand how land back and government reparations has become so valued on raddle. I got to be missing something.

For most of my life I was fine with reparations and land back but after reading more about understanding the indigenous struggle against the US government it seems to be a poor plan that won't work and follows the rich history of the US promising to treat indigenous groups better if they just assimilate more or be more peaceful but never giving more than just enough scraps to survive to the groups who tried compromise.

Isn't the situation of many indigenous people so perilous they can't afford to hope and pray settlers will decide to be nice? Wouldn't solutions advocating attack and taking what they need despite settler objection be a far more productive road to go down?

Edit: to clarify even if indigenous peoples get land back and quite a bit of reparations I'd still support stealing.

4

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote

let's go through this bit of concern trolling point by point

What is special about indigenous people

People need to be 'special' in order for them to qualify for relief? No. Strawman #1.

and land back that the naritive is that the best anti racist strategy

Who said getting our land back is the 'best anti racist strategy'? No one. Strawman #2.

is to protest against the USA

Who said anyone should 'protest against the USA'? No one. Strawman #3.

and have indigenous people to try to convince the genocidal colonizers to give them land or reparations?

Who said colonizers would ever voluntarily part with their ill begotten spoils? No one who has been colonized is under the impressions that settlers will ever give anything up to the people they've conquered. That doesn't mean we just stop wanting our land and independence back. Us wanting our land back, or even demanding our land back, and us believing you'll ever give it to us are 2 different things.

I also support world peace and worldwide anarchy, doesn't mean I'm ever getting those things either. Stawman #4.

Like most of the people running the US government hate indigenous people.

Who gives a shit about the US government? Why are you framing everything through a North American lens? I've never even set foot on that continent.

Trying to convince genociders to give autonomy to the group they are genociding seems like a dead end tactically.

It's not a tactical decision, it's having your whole world taken from you and wanting it back. It doesn't have to be a feasible demand, it comes from a place of emotion. People are allowed to have emotional reactions to states stripping them of their autonomy. No anarchist actually believes they're going to overthrow the state, but that's no reason to stop wanting the state to die. Fuck your emotion-policing tactics.

Anyone who knows me knows I wear my heart on my sleeve. I don't need to stop wanting my people's land back because some settler 2 continents away has decided I'm not being tactical. I don't need to make friends with the settlers living in my grandfather's house because you think I'm being emotional by not accepting their theft.

This question is pretty important bc for most indigenous people on reservations life is a struggle to survive.

In my situation, those of us who were displaced by settlers (the first generation anyway) live in refugee housing projects, not reservations. And we weren't displaced by the state that rules us, we were displaced by another invading state. When you frame everything through a specific regional and cultural experience that doesn't apply to all colonized people around the world, it's no wonder you're unable to grasp any kind of nuance.

Why is the most advocated tactic for indigenous people seem to fundamentally reformist unlike most other responses from raddle to other injustices of the world.

Wanting your shit back isn't reformist. It's an emotional reaction to your shit being taken and to you being discarded into the gutters of society. Refugees wanting to regain a modicum of dignity after a life of suffering are not reformists, they're fucking survivors.

Wtf kind of anarchist is against refugees getting their homes back? How can my grandfather yearning to sleep in his own garden under his own olive tree on hot summer nights be described as "fundamentally reformist"?

When he died in poverty never being able to return to his home, or shake the trauma of knowing that more than half the people he grew up with were raped, tortured and murdered by invading soldiers, while the rest ran for their lives with nothing but the clothes on their back, never getting to see their homes again, was he being a bad anarchist? A fundamental reformist?

You know what, I'm not even gonna finish reading this shit. Fuck you and fuck all settlers.

6

bloodrose wrote

It's not a tactical decision, it's having your whole world taken from you and wanting it back. It doesn't have to be a feasible demand, it comes from a place of emotion. People are allowed to have emotional reactions to states stripping them of their autonomy.

I feel like there is a very puritanical bent in Americans that everything must be an action and work. You are not allowed to dislike something unless you have a plan and are doing actions and work to that end. It causes some very unkind unsympathetic behavior by Americans.

6

ziq wrote

All my grandfather and his sister wanted all their lives was to go back to their family home. It didn't have electricity or plumbing, but their father built it stone by stone and it was everything to them. When my mother dies, there will be no one left who even remembers life in their village. It really has nothing to do with ideology, but politics nerds can't stop themselves from absorbing other people's lives into their pious communist crusade.

4

lettuceLeafer OP wrote (edited )

Edit: adding this to the top in case ziq doesn't read all they get the important bit. U helped me understand the issue with what I said a bit better. I appreciate u taking the time and I found it quite helpful. I'll use what u said in the future to try making post that help maintain raddle as a safe space for indigenous people and prevent making posts in ways that can be distressing. Thanks for your time

People need to be 'special' in order for them to qualify for relief? No. Strawman #1.

I think most indigenous people not just quality for relief but need it. Nothing special has to happen to them.

Who said getting our land back is the 'best anti racist strategy'? No one. Strawman #2.

I'm mostly just talking about what circle A was talking about as I got lots of pushback in my response to them. So this al is about my conversation with them. I'm not talking about all anti colonia thought I'm trying to understand where my thinking went wrong with circle A.

It's not a tactical decision, it's having your whole world taken from you and wanting it back. It doesn't have to be a feasible demand, it comes from a place of emotion. People are allowed to have emotional reactions to states stripping them of their autonomy. No anarchist actually believes they're going to overthrow the state, but that's no reason to stop wanting the state to die. Fuck your emotion-policing tactics.

Anyone who knows me knows I wear my heart on my sleeve. I don't need to stop wanting my people's land back because some settler 2 continents away has decided I'm not being tactical. I don't need to make friends with the settlers living in my grandfather's house because you think I'm being emotional by not accepting their theft.

I agree, thats why I think its important for indigenous people to try and get land back any way possible not just by asking the colonizing force to be nicer.

Who gives a shit about the US government? Why are you framing everything through a North American lens? I've never even set foot on that continent.

The discussion is often framed as land back and reparations is what is best for all indigenous people to gain autonomy. I'm bringing up situations of indigenous people in the US as that is all I really know enough to feel like its appropriate for me to speak on. I'm avoiding talking about indigenous groups outsides of the americas as I have no where near enough understanding to hope to even offer any useful discussion.

It's not a tactical decision, it's having your whole world taken from you and wanting it back. It doesn't have to be a feasible demand, it comes from a place of emotion. People are allowed to have emotional reactions to states stripping them of their autonomy. No anarchist actually believes they're going to overthrow the state, but that's no reason to stop wanting the state to die. Fuck your emotion-policing tactics.

Anyone who knows me knows I wear my heart on my sleeve. I don't need to stop wanting my people's land back because some settler 2 continents away has decided I'm not being tactical. I don't need to make friends with the settlers living in my grandfather's house because you think I'm being emotional by not accepting their theft.

Yeah, I think those or most emotions for that reason are valid. I'll honestly keep that in mind for the future. If I did somehow police and tell indigenous people how to feel that was fucked up for me to do. Its very possible I did it and not notice especially considering how my first comments did not give the issue the seriousness it deserves. I will honestly keep that in mind and try far harder in the future to not police peoples emotions. I apologize to anyone I hurt by the lazy comments that came of as telling them how to feel.

I agree with everything u said. So I respond by saying we should advocate indigenous people just fucking taking shit until they can get their land back if they so desire. The system is rigged against them and many indigenous people have a tough road ahead that I can't even imagine the difficulty. I can't see the system or settlers helping too much so indigenous people who want land should just use whatever tactics are the most effective to get them what they need.

Honestly how u framed what u mean when u say land back changes how I understand what u say. I think it makes far more sense and I don't really have any issue with what u mean when u say indigenous people deserve and should get land back. In fact I agree and support. Not that my support or agreement means shit.

In my situation, those of us who were displaced by settlers (the first generation anyway) live in refugee housing projects, not reservations. And we weren't displaced by the state that rules us, we were displaced by another invading state. When you frame everything through a specific regional and cultural experience that doesn't apply to all colonized people around the world, it's no wonder you're unable to grasp any kind of nuance.

well thats kinda what I have issue with when people talk about what the indigenous people should do. Indigenous people are thousands of incredibly diverse groups of people the tactic of asking governemnts to give land back is going to be ineffective for many of these groups so I just have to mentions a small minority of indigenous groups to ciritque the idea that "the indigenous people" should do "x" as thats not really a good mindest for addressing decolonization.

I just bring up the US as that is whats practical for me. I'm not really planning on living outside of the americas so my opinion on what indigenous people do outsides of americas has no worth as it wont influence my actions in the future. I just address these ideas in ways that change how I affect the world and don't try to theorize in what peoples I never meet should do in a community I'll never be a part of.

Wanting your shit back isn't reformist. It's an emotional reaction to your shit being taken and to you being discarded into the gutters of society. Refugees wanting to regain a modicum of dignity after a life of suffering are not reformists, they're fucking survivors.

Yeah that is a very reasonable response to such a massive injustice. I'm just saying that people on the internet should be careful in telling these survivors to try and convince their oppressors to be nicer oppressors. A far better solution for these survivors would be an individualist diverse set of tactics. So I say these indigenous survivors should just take what they need a fuck how the settlers feel about it. I don't think I have any issue with your position on land back and reparations. Though I feel land back and reparations can mean very different things depending on who is saying it.

Wtf kind of anarchist is against refugees getting their homes back? How can my grandfather yearning to sleep in his own garden under his own olive tree on hot summer nights be described as "fundamentally reformist"?

When he died in poverty never being able to return to his home, or shake the trauma of knowing that more than half the people he grew up with were raped, tortured and murdered by invading soldiers, while the rest ran for their lives with nothing but the clothes on their back, never getting to see their homes again, was he being a bad anarchist? A fundamental reformist?

I don't think thats reformist at all. Fucked up think to happen to him but not reformist.

Thinking about what u said I found it very helpful in changing my perspective. I was very callous in how I said things on an issue very important to many people. I should have been far more careful in how I said things, be clearer and more outright in my support of peoples struggle. My callousness probably lead to raddle being less of a safe space for indigenous people on raddle. Which is very regrettable for me and a messed up things to do. I will take the due diligence to not do that in the future. Thank u ziq for taking the time to address my post. It honestly helped me in understanding what I did wrong. I truly appreciate u taking the time and energy to respond

2

ziq wrote

I agree with everything u said. So I respond by saying we should advocate indigenous people just fucking taking shit until they can get their land back if they so desire.

When I was a kid, several older kids I grew up with tried to storm the border to get back to their villages. The settlers beat my best friend's cousin to death in front of everyone and then shot his other cousin dead. The moment colonized people push back against colonizers in any way, they get killed. Settlers have immense military power behind them or they wouldn't be able to remain settlers.

6

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

Yeah i think it would be very foolish of me to advocae for such an outright challenge to colinial power. I was more going along the lines of if the state makes an indigenous reliant on them for food learning how to shoplift is prob a better strategy for getting food as it increases autonomy. Tho get food from subsidies too if u can.

Instead of storming land st3aking money to buy land could be an effective land back strategy in the US at least. I.e credit card fraud then fencing the goods. With the criminally gained money they could then buy land.

If just one indigenous person pulled some phineas phisher level shit they could dramatically increase the autonomy for themself and their community.

Tho I don't claim to know what is best for any indigenous people. Bc I don't. I'm just suggesting a way of thinking that I think might be more feasible in increasing autonomy, surviving and getting land for insigenous people.

I guess I was just a little upset how the whole naritive on what indigenous people should do to gain autonomy seems to be a complete dead end and anarchist strategies from other anti racist movements aren't really being considered or talked about for indigenous people.

But yeah I agree with what u said. In the US the indigenous groups who took an outright violent stand against the US government for wiped form existence. So going that far might not be the greatest solution tho it did work for Somalian pirates.

I think there is a lot of wiggle room for people to take things and get away with it that isn't outright attack.

2

zoom_zip wrote

i’m just posting here because i think you are about to stir up some ire, and i don’t want you to feel alone in that.

call me a utopian idealist, but i am against borders. a fight over land ownership seems counter-intuitive to a lot of (my?) ideals. it seems to run counter to the goal of free association, free movement, and personally i’d prefer not to think of people by ethnicity and delineate borders by that ethnicity. others may not agree but land borders feel authoritarian to me. i think that’s why it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of some people. not because they are defending settler colonialism, but because it feels like a repetition of history where people have repeatedly and continuously fought over who owns what land.

two things, though:

  1. i recognise we don’t reach this ideal in one step. breaking apart a state by reclaiming land is one step in weakening their stranglehold on land ownership and providing spaces where people can go that aren’t owned by the monopoly state.

  2. i’m a white person in albion. my voice is not required in this conversation, so until this post i have opted to keep my mouth shut and listen, and try to learn.

anyway, thanks for making the post, maybe we can both learn something here

5

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

BTW I'm very pro indigenous people getting private property. I just think stealing money to buy property if they wish to own property is a possible strategy while asking the state to give indigenous people property is a very poor streategy for indigenous people who want and need land.

2

aaaaargZombies wrote

Anarchists draw boundaries all the time between recuperated and hybrid actions, but the problem is that the boundaries are ill-defined and under-theorised. Most anarchists would not, for instance, refuse to defend themselves in court, or to accept legal defence, in the event of being accused (especially wrongly accused) of an action. Most would give evidence that could be used to exonerate another anarchist. Yet most view voting in an election as a step too far

Andy Robinson - Thinking from the Outside: Avoiding Recuperation

I don't think the question of engaging the state is really here nor there. It's a question of non-reformist reform vs reformist reform. Will these things open up more room for freedom and equality which will in turn create a better place to struggle from or are they just fine tuning the system as is and smoothing over conflict.

4

Vulgar_Soda wrote

What is special about indigenous people and land back that the naritive is that the best anti racist strategy is to protest against the USA and have indigenous people to try to convince the genocidal colonizers to give them land or reparations?

Who is saying this? Why frame the question with the United States specifically? Judging from the bullshit discourse on raddle this past week, I feel like most of the commotion was a result of some folks misrepresenting entire conversations. Somehow reparations became a stand-in for an ethnostate and cops. Am I missing something here???

Ignore tactics or feasibility for a sec. If an oppressed people had the opportunity to gain back what was plundered from them, how is that in any way incongruent with anarchist principles? How does taking back what was taken, by whatever means, suddenly transform into a state building excercise? How is reclaiming what was once lost a bad thing?

Who is arguing that "the best way" to oppose oppression by the state is to grovel to said state? This is all hypothetical, and yet you frame the discussion of reparations in a way that implies a predisposition against anarchy. In the real world, reparations may or may not be coming. In the US, calls for reparations have been ongoing for centuries. In the US, reparations are an obvious pipe dream. The state is not coming to save the indigenous from the settler, and yet the mere thought of such a possibility prompted a backlash so great as to cause spill over from reddit to raddle. That certain reddit posters reflexively hid behind their "anarchy" in response to indigenous control of land and resources should be telling. The hypothetical becomes framed as antithetical to anarchy. Any mention of brown people getting theirs and the anarcho-scholars, the anarcho-monks and anarcho-sages, clasping at their bread bibles, jump at the ready to remind the brown people that, no, they cannot dare to entertain taking back stolen land or stolen wealth because doing so would sully real anarchy. All I see is another twisted ideology being used in defense of white supremacy.

The land lottery is fantasy, but one that scares the white settler. Why are you so confused by a group of people wanting to take back what was theirs? Would you be so inclined to protest if those people went to war, as opposed to "hoping and praying?" You may not understand reparations, but I do not think everyone needs to. The oppressed need not permission to take back from the oppressor, through negotiations or otherwise. Fuck settler approval. Is that not anarchy enough?


All this arguing over reparations and land back has got me feeling disgusted with the online anarchist scene. People place their identities on a hierarchy, with anarchist seemingly coming in second. I think I can guess what other identity comes in first.

3

lettuceLeafer OP wrote (edited )

Who is saying this? Why frame the question with the United States specifically? Judging from the bullshit discourse on raddle this past week, I feel like most of the commotion was a result of some folks misrepresenting entire conversations. Somehow reparations became a stand-in for an ethnostate and cops. Am I missing something here??

I was dunking on circle a over this very issue. I wasn't talking about the ethnostate or anything. Just saying that reparations as a strategy suck was why I got banned. Don't lump me in with the people who I vehemently disagree with who have completely different opinions with me.

How does taking back what was taken, by whatever means, suddenly transform into a state building excercise? How is reclaiming what was once lost a bad thing

Wrf, I said I would support it at least one time in this post. Said that I support it in dms. Said I support it 2 other times in comments. How many times do I have to say I support indigenous people getting subsidies if they are available for u to believe me? Is 5 the lucky number?

. All I see is another twisted ideology being used in defense of white supremacy

I fucking hate those pieces of shit on Reddit. I literally don't agree with them. I complained about how advocating for land back and reparations for all indigenous was a sucky idea, which promotes viewing the issue through a settler mindset and proposed a vastly better way of helping indigenous people. "Talk to them as individuals and come up with unique solutions which cater to the uniqueness of being oppressed as indigenous people and benefits such as locations, time, social groups.

he land lottery is fantasy, but one that scares the white settler

I would be very happy if the US decided to give land back to natives. Though we both agree there is no way in hell the US will do it.

The oppressed need not permission to take back from the oppressor, through negotiations or otherwise. Fuck settler approval. Is that not anarchy enough?

This is exactly what I'm arguing. In my discussion I got banned over the person was arguing for indigenous people improving their material conditions by convincing their settler oppressors to oppress them less. I told them why I though their ideas suck and why I don't take them seriously and I got banned.

This feels like I say something U then say I vehemently disagree say. No this is what is true then copy paste what I had said initially. Like I literally said twice to u that I think a better solution is literally just stealing from settlers. How tf is that not screaming that the oppressed don't need to ask.

I also don't understand how me not liking the strategy of an oppressed group begging to their oppressors to oppreaw them less and then suggesting a far better strategy is just to take what they need to survive and try to build their own autonomy as the state won't help them.

Like did u even read what I wrote? It just sounds like u are responding to the dipshits who I don't like and disagree with rather than what I'm saying.

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

Wouldn't solutions advocating attack and taking what they need despite settler objection be a far more productive road to go down?

Yes, that is what land back means actually, in my understanding. There's nothing about making an ethnostate for indigenous people, that wouldn't even be remotely feasible and is just a strawman argument.

Definitely big ups on the land back. deconstruct the state, and stop protecting the exploiters who are destroying the land through "owning" it. whatever that really means, i mean it's not like air pollution or water pollution or tearing up the ground and destroying trees, doesn't affect the other parts of the land beyond the property line. Anyway, we can't survive if the land isn't back, so to speak. So, indigenous people regaining power over what happens on their traditional lands is one indispensible and very effective part of the overall plan to try to avoid as many people dying and getting pwn by climate change and generally the degradation of the environment we are all completely dependent on for food and stuff

3

lettuceLeafer OP wrote (edited )

Personally I'm not going to associate my idea with land back especially considering the response to my take was a lot of "shut tf up white settler" and a ban. So I don't think what I'm saying is land back if a bunch of pro land back anarchists get mad at me for my take.

Oh and to be clear I don't think land back would cause a ethnostate. I would clarify my position more but don't want to get banned again.

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

Hm, this is all very unclear, are you sure this space isn't accomodating to the discussion? If so, we could just DM about this, but I am curious what your perspective is regardless.

3