💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › llud-towards-unsettling-paths.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:18:58. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Towards Unsettling Paths Author: Llud Date: April 19th, 2015 Language: en Topics: anti-civ, anti-oppression, Canada, colonialism, indigenous solidarity, individualism, land struggles, privilege, spirituality, Vancouver Source: Retreived on June 3rd 2015 from https://wreckpublication.wordpress.com
“If non-indigenous anarchists are to develop ways of interacting with
indigenous peoples that are different from those of political
organizations they must begin from direct communication, solidarity and
trust. Anyone who really wants to act in solidarity with others does not
stumble around inside their homes, uninvited, stinking of arrogance and
ignorance, and taking up space. It should go without saying that
cultural differences and the unique experience of colonization should be
understood and respected.
The old racist and inaccurate idea of the “noble savage”, which a few
petty anarchist philosophers still hold on to, is in need of a complete
demolition. As mentioned earlier, there are substantial variations
between indigenous nations and communities in terms of their internal
social structure. So a generalized model can’t match up with reality.
Real solidarity can be put into practice through direct contact with the
indigenous sovereignty movement, and attacks on common enemies — using
the principles of direct action, self-organization, and constant
struggle.” - Insurgent S, Colonization, Self-Government and
Self-Determination in British Columbia, 2003
I have lived nearly my entire life on the traditional lands of the
Sḵwx̱wú7mesh, xʷməθkʷəy̓əm and Tsleil-Waututh peoples. For this, it is
customary to thank the surviving members of these peoples and their
ancestors, but I am unsure how I would accept such gratitude in their
shoes. Since the beginning of contact with europeans (diverse groups of
people from the same sub-continent as my ancestors), the overbearing
trend has been the horror of domination and genocide. Thankfulness, in
this context, seems like adding insult to injury more than anything.
Still, the land and mountains are beautiful. The water is clean to
drink, and I have thought for a long time of how beautiful, and
bountiful the earth, forests, creeks and oceans must have been here,
when people were not living in a relationship of domination over the
earth, before the British and other europeans came and imposed the
terror of capitalism, colonialism and the state. I am thankful to be
aware of this, and to understand the task of undoing it all.
As a non-indigenous person living under the weight of capitalism, I have
wondered since childhood who I am, and what I am to do. Since a young
age, I have clashed with authorities, from schools to Christian ideas
and police. As a working class child living in a densely populated area
of a suburb, I was bound to form relationships with some of the people
from the local Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and Tsleil-Waututh reserves. This has always
been a part of how I understood the world. It was always clear that
here, people were categorically oppressed by the system, and that the
misery I felt under the weight of society was hardly even close to the
experiences of many Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and Tsleil-Waututh. I do not, nor have
I, nor will I ever identify with the colonizer, the police, the bosses,
the bureaucrats, the rich fucks, any of them, and since this has lasted
me to my thirties, I see no reason why this will change before my dying
days.
At some point before my mid-twenties I became aware of the anarchist
movement and I decided that this best represented my tension with this
world. Soon after I moved to a part of town, not far away, where I
thought I might be able to find other anarchists and engage with the
social movements happening in the area. At this time my understanding of
anarchy was something more similar to an anarcho-syndicalist point of
view with a heavy emphasis on atheism, which saw the workers taking over
the means of production and running the economy in their own interests.
In Vancouver, indigenous people are generally at the forefront of
movements that represent some level of class conflict. Many of these
urban native people are not from the local reserves or peoples, but are
from many different places in the geographic area known as “Canada”,
pushed off of the land by colonization and industrialization and forced
into the Eastside of Vancouver. I am thankful to say that the experience
of being in the streets, and witnessing ceremonies with these people
caused me to change my archaic view of the world and how I saw anarchy.
It became clear to me that this industrial hell is for no-one, and that
bringing forth an industrial utopia, worker self-organized or otherwise,
would likely end up in the same result of colonial oppression and
domination that was causing the misery I already knew so well.
I recently took a trip across this continent and back to the european
sub-continent. In some of the places I visited, I intended to see the
lands some of my ancestors came from. Having forged close relationships
with indigenous people in struggle here, it seemed necessary to think
about my own relationships to land and ancestors, a perplexing subject
for someone who's ancestors haven't been indigenous in a very, very long
time [1]. These are feelings and facts that I am still grappling with,
and may be for a while longer.
Another important aspect of this journey was meeting and having
conversations with anarchists from the sub-continent about a variety of
struggles and ideas. I spent time in London, one of the centres of the
hell of domination that covers most of the earth. I also spent time at a
ZAD (zone of defense) occupation in western France [2], as well as among
comrades in Athens, Berlin and a number of other places having many
interesting conversations.
The autonomous zone in France was a land occupation to stop an Airport
from being built. People had fought off police attacks and were forging
a life without police and state intrusions, while trying to mediate
between many different participants in the land struggle with vastly
different ideas and motivations. An interesting observation that my
travelling partner had was how even here, where you had people casting
off the shackles of industrial development, there was a massive
disconnect from the land and ecosystems. The best idea offered for
reclaiming the land was a pastoral activity, with hay farming and
keeping agricultural livestock. They had reclaimed the land and put it
in common, yes, but there was no proposal as to whether they would allow
the forest to reclaim any area and find ways to live with the ecosystems
of the earth. This was a common sight along the “european” anarchist
landscape; people there are so far removed from any concept of
indigenous life and the wild spaces of the earth, that it is very hard
for them to comprehend these possibilities.
In Athens and Berlin, I had some of the conversations that helped
motivate me to write this article. The comrades I talked with described
to me a general distaste for the idea of stolen or ancestral lands, and
were displeased that anarchists would lend their solidarity to concepts
and struggles that they saw as inherently authoritarian. The
conversations were both extremely frustrating and refreshing. In my own
context, for better or for worse, we often do not question such
subjects. While it makes sense given our experiences on these lands, it
is perhaps not fitting of anarchists, and stops us from pushing further
in our goal of the liberation for all people.
“The idea that the state will inevitably reemerge over time is another
of these hopelessly eurocentric fantasies in which Western culture
indoctrinates people. Dozens of indigenous societies around the world
never developed states, they thrived for thousands of years, they have
never surrendered, and when they finally triumph against colonialism
they will cast off the impositions of white culture, which includes the
state and capitalism, and revitalize their traditional cultures, which
they still carry with them. Many indigenous groups have experience going
back hundreds or even thousands of years of contact with the state, and
at no point have they voluntarily surrendered to state authority.
Western anarchists have much to learn from this persistence, and all
people from Western society should take the hint: the state is not an
inevitable adaptation, it is an imposition, and once we learn how to
defeat it for good, we will not let it come back.” - Peter Gelderloos,
Anarchy Works
Indigenous groups and individuals are as diverse as one can imagine.
Some groups are traditionally hierarchical and had created vast, highly
structured civilizations prior to contact. Others are hierarchical and
created semi-sedentary, semi-feudal societies. Many others are
non-hierarchical, or very limited in top-down structure.
Among all these peoples there is also vast difference in the level of
bureaucracy used in maintaining social and religious relations between
individuals, clans, tribes, and neighbouring peoples. Some were more
individualistic, whereas others have a more collective identity.
There is also some difference in how each particular european empire
impacted these groups. For example, what time and technological level
these european empires were at when contact began has had an effect on
how intact traditional cultural structures are within each people. It
also has an effect on the level of recuperation versus naked repression
and Christianization that can be seen in relation to modern colonial
power structures.
I am making these points not with the intention of building a
patronizing anthropological thesis of indigenous peoples, but instead to
deconstruct grand sweeping declarations of who people are. To make
generalizations for the positive or negative of whole groups of people,
has the effect of erasing people and furthering the colonial project.
The conquest of the “Americas”, as well as of the entire globe, and its
unique groups and individuals has been a very long process. Zig Zag, an
indigenous warrior, who has been involved in the anarchist movement on
this continent since the 1980's, has described colonization as a “war
for territory”. Since what colonial power structures need is access to
land, resources, and exploitable populations, indigenous peoples are
marked for annihilation and assimilation. At the heart of indigenous
struggles, and in fact, their very existence, is the land on which
indigenous people live.
When the European powers, and civilizations before them, came to occupy
land, they had to first kill-off or subjugate the people who lived
there. This is the common thread in how this horrible world came to be.
As anarchists, we feel a deep hatred for these circumstances. Since the
word anarchy came to be, we have thrown ourselves with an admirable
recklessness at the nation-state in our desire to destroy it. We have
seldom cared (nor should we ever have) whether the state takes the form
of capitalism, socialism, democracy, fascism, mercantilism, nor even if
it comes out of a compromised national liberation struggle.
Indigenous people are diverse and have many ways in which they relate to
a state. Some may choose a more reformist route, choosing to use a
capitalist framework with how they relate to their lands. Others do what
most working-class and subjugated peoples do: just try to survive and
get along. What I have been most inspired by as an anarchist, is those
who oppose the intrusions of the state into their own free ways of life.
These people often practice the use of warrior societies in opposing
state and capitalist projects on their territories. The people
themselves are unique individuals who may have differing views, but one
common thread I have noticed is that these people are often heavily
linked to the traditional ways of life of their peoples. These people
are unfortunately often a minority in their communities, but they have
held on to much of what colonial society has tried to rip from them. I
have also noticed that what these people usually fight for is not a
relationship of domination over vast groups of people in the form of a
nation-state, but to freely recreate with others the forms of freedom
and control over their own lives that their ancestors enjoyed.
“...and what I've studied about anarchy, is anarchy wishes for social
order, but not at everyone else's expense. Not at anyone else's expense.
No one else should feel degraded because you're comfortable. Everyone is
equal, you organize horizontal... traditional societies are no
different. Yes this is a traditional hierarchical system, there is a
chief, there is women chiefs, there is children of chiefs. I am born
into nobility myself, my mother is a chief, my father is a chief, but
that does not mean that I can't be an anarchist. It means that I am
looking at that traditional hierarchical system that is also sick. My
father is on a decolonization path himself, and I'm not going tell
myself that I'm decolonized. I've freed my mind, I've kept a free mind,
I'm still impacted, I am not decolonized. Now why I say that is because
settler society also must get a sense of what decolonization is, and
you're on that path as anarchists. You've taken that step to decolonize.
And how does that relate to traditional societies? In traditional
societies you ask permission to be on the land. In our territory, in our
camp, you went through a protocol, but it wasn't police standing at the
bridge, telling you, you have to ask us for a right to be here, we
didn't say that. We stood there very, very openly and welcoming, but
stern. Not cold, not really warm, but just... “I'm not going to get
erased, I'm not going to get bulldozed, I'm not going to get
railroaded”. But at the same time “I'm thankful you're here, this is the
protocol we're going to go through first, before you enter the
territory”. Not just to say you need permission first, which
(traditionally) was actually part of it, you're asking the chiefs
permission to be on the territory. But what you were asking was not just
to be there, like rights, but how can we share responsibility to be on
the land. Sharing responsibilities, sharing the (natural) law, self
regulation, to me that totally relates to anarchy.” - Mel Bazil, Gitxsan
and Wet'suwet'en, Transcending Rights
“The movement is in our blood, not in your hierarchy” - Callout for
Oglala Lakota Territory Liberation Day 2015
Imagine a house.
Imagine that house encompasses a vast ecosystem.
Uninvited, you wake up in that house. Unsure of how you got there.
Amnesia makes it hard to remember who you are. You realize that
something isn't quite right with what you’re being told about that
house's history.
You also come to realize that there are people who are at the bottom of
a hierarchy that has been set up in the house, these people have a
greater knowledge of the house for what it is, it's ecosystems etc. They
also have some hints of a much more communal and egalitarian way of
relating to each other in that house. It is clear that in this house,
all are forced to rely on structures and resources that maintain that
hierarchy in order to survive, while this group of people have a
traditional knowledge of how to thrive and live without these
structures. This house in undeniably theirs.
The masters of that house threaten you with violence if you don't keep
your head down and work. In this position you are allowed more
free-passage through some rooms and hallways in the house, but you
remain deeply restricted and in many ways suffocated.
Indigenous and Non-indigenous anarchists must destroy the masters of
this house and the structures they have set up, uninvited guests though
we often are. We also have much to be thankful for, that we have the
examples of our indigenous comrades and hosts of this house, in how we
can live freely and respectfully in this house and others.
When comrades from the european subcontinent reject the idea of
ancestral lands, I don't believe it is because they are desiring the
continuation of colonial oppression of indigenous peoples. One position
these comrades seem to be arguing is more of a militant
multiculturalism, one that places the freedom of individuals in the
highest regard, regardless of their place of origin and circumstances of
birth. I do have affinity with this position, but I believe it misses
some important points in relation to living on lands stolen from
indigenous peoples.
When a person or group is placed at a lower level in a hierarchical
system, they are then forced to conform to a dominant culture. As an
anarchist, I have a problem with the idea that people would need to
compromise their diverse ways of being for the benefit of a dominant
whole. In the context of a white-supremacist society that intends,
through colonialism, to strip people of their diverse ways of being,
specifically those that show us an alternative to the hell that we know,
it isn't surprising that anarchists lend their solidarity to indigenous
rebels, with an aim to break from that dominant culture themselves.
There is of course a major problem here, one identified by at least one
of the comrades I talked to on the subcontinent who rejected the concept
of stolen lands, and one that anarchists and others would be foolish to
ignore. Nazi's, various Nazi spinoffs, conservative nationalists, and
many others attempt to argue similar positions to that of indigenous
struggles; they argue that their lands are being invaded, by bankers,
foreign governments, or immigrants, and they argue that there is a
dominant culture that is forcing them towards multiculturalism,
accepting immigration, unlearning homophobia, allowing birth control,
etc.
Third Positionism is a neo-fascist tendency. It advocates for a break
from marxism and capitalism alike, and seeks to create alliances across
“racial separatist” lines. Out of this tendency has come the absurd idea
of “National Anarchism”. Secessionism is a common theme in this
tendency. Secessionism refers to pulling away and declaring
independence, which in the eyes of a fascist would mean racial
independence. While indigenous sovereigntists want a separation with
colonial culture, it would seem clear, though perhaps easy for some to
confuse, that they are not arguing for white-supremacist categorizations
of separation such as “all people from Europe are white, white people
must stick with white people, all people from Africa are black, black
people must stick with black people.”
Attackthesystem.com is a neo-fascist website, with the tagline
“Pan-anarchism against the state, pan-secessionism against empire.” It
appears to have very little of a base in actual social movements, but
has contributors from around the world. Deceivingly, they have pictures
of a number of classical anarchists on the header to their website.
Their writers are not only white fascist rejects and
“anarcho-capitalist” wingnuts; for example Vince Rinehart (Raven
Warrior) is a Tlingit traditionalist who also contributes to the
website. While we are talking about only one known individual, it is not
impossible that other indigenous traditionalists hold similar views, and
it is possible that if anarchists are not careful with how they interact
with indigenous sovereignty movements, they could be creating anything
but anarchy.
Although not directly related to indigenous sovereignty, we also know
that Nathan Block (aka “exile”) and his partner Sadie, both former Earth
Liberation Front prisoners, have become third-positionist fascists. They
now live in Olympia, WA, and Nathan himself has posted all kinds of
esoteric fascist symbols and quotes on his website. One can read about
this by searching through the NYC antifa website. Anarchists and many
other revolutionaries are not immune from turning in a completely
different direction, even if, and especially when they remain radical.
Fascism will use anything to gain momentum. If socialism is a popular
sentiment, they will brand themselves “National Socialists” in order to
gain adherents. At present, the ecosystems of the earth are collapsing,
and western rational thought derived from Christianity is seen as a
fundamental part of the problem, while power and control are
decentralizing through social media, and mass surveillance. It is a
clever ploy that fascists around the world are latching onto labels like
“autonomous-nationalism” and “national-anarchism”, and that adherents to
these positions are advocating for a focus on the land and ecosystems.
As is standard for fascists they also propose a largely mythical
connection to the past and ancestors. Anarchists must be careful that we
are always critically minded and not guilted through privilege politics
or wooed by hip occultism and environmentalist symbols and scenes, or
anything else, into accepting any kind of authoritarianism. A native
traditionalist who argues for racial separation and supremacy may not
bring us much closer to liberation than a bonehead fascist.
I have been honoured in the last few years with what I have heard from
many of my indigenous comrades. Although I can be seen as a person from
a population that committed genocide against their people and that
continue to occupy their lands, some of them are still willing to see me
as a comrade in struggle. They have challenged me to think about anarchy
in a way that does not only come from a western worldview. They have
challenged me to be more spiritual in how I view my struggle, and have
occasionally challenged me to look into my own origins, that I can only
vaguely access. I often think it is foolish, and even self-destructive,
how much territory anarchists and leftists leave to the fascists when we
do not explore these ideas, when we allow pre-christian ceremonies and
symbols to become fascist ones, but we have much to be careful of, and
much to reject.
My ancient ancestors were not white, or Aryan or any of that nonsense.
Whiteness was eventually created as european empires needed to begin
exploiting non-european populations, and needed the slaves of their
nation to join them in that cause. If we are ever to shake off
domination and exploitation, and destroy America, Canada and every
nation-state once and for all, I do not intend for white people to exist
any longer. I intend to honour my indigenous comrades in their search
for their own traditional lives. I intend to create a community with all
others, where we can collectively ensure our free individuality and
diverse traditions, for however many generations they last and for new
ones to begin to flourish organically. This greatly differs from a
purely separatist solution, in that we all have a chance to become
something greater than the possibilities that have been allowed to us
since the various processes of colonization swallowed up our ancestors
and took away their great wealth of traditional knowledge and ability to
live in co-existence.
One comrade beautifully described to me that they do not see themselves
as a “european”, instead as someone who was “born accidentally in a
shit-hole of the South Balkans” and that they were unwilling to
recognize any ancestors except those who since the dawn of time strived
for freedom against all forms of domination, regardless of where they
were born. I relate to this, on practical and spiritual levels. I feel
strongly for their rejection of a european identity, as it relates to my
desire to destroy a concept like whiteness. I too feel that individuals
must always have agency. A desire, on individual and collective levels,
to break all ties to what is horrible in this world, is of the utmost
importance for rebellion. But at the same time I do not expect all
oppressed people to simply hear my declaration and accept me as an equal
in struggle. I do not expect them to care; I intend to show them, as I
move through this life however I can, that I mean it.
On this continent the politics of privilege and the idea of the ally are
very popular in social struggles, even among anarchists, and especially
around the subject of indigenous solidarity. In the mainstream we see
hipster non-profit workers and others, pick up on this disempowering
line of thinking. This approach completely rejects the experiences of
individuals in emphasizing the experiences of oppressed groups from
which individuals are tokenized for legitimacy in struggles. I believe
the anarchist relationship to individualism has much to offer in
breaking from such a patronizing path.
I do not want to be insensitive towards the people who I believe are the
minority within the anti-oppression forum. I know that many of these
people are deeply passionate about wanting to end all oppression within
public and private spaces, forever. But I cannot in good conscience see
my comrades and others go down such a troubled, dead-end road without
sending caution to them.
In the last few years a number of texts have circulated that have
heavily criticized anti-oppression, allies, privilege politics and the
non-profit industrial complex [3]. These critiques have been wonderful
to circulate and discuss with comrades younger and older, but they often
gloss over the reality that there are a number of people who are from
the grassroots, not associated with any non-profit institution, that
carry forward the same manner of thinking and sometimes act as their
institutional counterparts. The problem here is that these comrades do
not fall into the non-profit industrial complex and so they believe the
criticisms don't apply to them.
Privilege politics treats people as identifiable categories that can be
explained with in a sentence. These categories can then be characterized
by one group or individual who visually represent said category. The job
of the ally is to take these credible voices and put them on a platform
(rightly in a sense) above pompous academics, guilty whiteys,
condescending liberals, etc.
The ally is the selfless martyr who is overcoming their privilege and
stepping down to help the oppressed. They will deny it, but this is
fundamental to their position.
The problem is that no-one acts out of total selflessness. Even our most
selfless acts as human beings are often out of a need to be at peace
with our conscience, intergenerational self-preservation, or ego. There
is nothing wrong with this; the monster, I believe, is created when we
deny this fact. If we cannot even be honest with ourselves, then how can
we ever be honest with others, especially when we have such a
condescending relationship to these “others”?
The consequence in social movements is often a parasitic relationship
where one behaves as though they have nothing to gain from their
selfless acts and instead is building up an egotistical reputation on
the struggles of these others. I believe there is a dire need for
everyone to be honest with who and how they are engaging in struggle. If
you do not share a common enemy with another, then what actual basis do
you have for a relationship of struggle? This can be combated simply by
people finding their own individual and collective reasons to struggle
against a common enemy, a common enemy that the politics of privilege
will not allow someone to acknowledge.
Within the context of a social movement no one would deny that
socialization and social hierarchies cloud our vision, leading us
towards destructive behavior and complicity with oppression. But there
is often (not always) a self-righteous air about those who engage in
anti-oppression politics that I find particularly hard to stomach. The
general sentiment of these “allies” is that everyone is stupid and
wrong, and they need to educate or force others to believe that they and
their ideology are right.
It seems clear to me that people throughout history have rarely needed
to be sat down and formally educated on why they must struggle against
this world. Did the rioters of the black liberation struggle in the
states need to go through a bureaucratic process for how to fight
against oppression, to sit with gut-wrenching guilt and sorrow,
pondering their privileges first? Can we say the same of the gay and
trans revolutionaries of the 70's in New York? The maroons in Brazil,
Jamaica, and the Dismal Swamp in Virginia? The indigenous societies and
their warriors who fought against Babylon, the Celts against the Romans,
and those who carry on with this struggle today?
The alienation we experience under capitalism keeps us all too confined
for anarchists to not look at our relationships and actions as
opportunities for expansion. It would be a bare minimum to provide
whatever resources we can to those we have affinity with. Relegating
ourselves to the role of supporter or “ally” will do no one any favors
when expressing support to indigenous camps or responding to attacks by
the state against those who are categorically oppressed. I am only “in
the way” if I am disrespectful to those I move forward with, the same as
if I am not moving forward myself. The state is already my enemy until
death and beyond, when I reach out to those who it attempts to destroy,
I am trying to strengthen all our struggles. For us to ever have a
chance of unsettling ourselves we must be unrested and unruly, never
without initiative.
What has been the largest driving force behind the most powerful,
inspiring, and liberatory struggles has been a recognition on
individual, and collective levels that we must, ourselves, fight for
freedom. We need to be wary of having our struggles compromised and
capitalized upon by authoritarians of all kinds, and finding our own
reasons and purposes in this struggle will help us towards this goal. To
prevent our struggles for liberation from conceding to power and
control, before we have a chance of breaking them. To prevent our social
war, with its infinite battlefronts, from being told to sit back and
introspect.
I do not intend for these observations, gained through years of pain and
joy, trial and error, to stay stuck within these pages. I am not writing
this from a place of having figured out every detail, but I do see many
holes in the way people are engaging with themselves and others. I hope
this essay will contribute to a more serious outlook and practice as we
move through our struggles and lives which carry heavy consequences for
both the positive and negative.
[1] By indigenous, I mean those who have an intimate knowledge of the
lands that they inhabit, and that get much of their identity as a person
from their experiences and relationships on and with these lands. An
ancestral connection to the land is common, and very important.
[2] ZAD refers to a social movement that exists in France today. They
are land occupations that halt development in a number of places, and in
the midst of these occupations attempt to set up anti-capitalist
communitarian relationships in the form of autonomous zones. The one
described in this article is at Notre-Dame-Des-Landes, and is often
referred to as “La Zad.”
[3] The Bricks we Throw at Police Today Will Build the Liberation
Schools of Tomorrow, Three Non-Matriculating Proletarians, 2009/ They
Can't Shoot us All, Anonymous, 2010/ Lines in Sand, Peter Gelderloos,
2010/ Who is Oakland, Escalating Identity, 2012/ We Are All Oscar Grant
(?), Unfinished Acts, 2012/ Ain't no PC Gonna Fix it, Baby: A Critique
of Ally Politics, Crimethinc, 2014/ Accomplices Not Allies: an
Indigenous Perspective, Indigenous Action Media, 2014