Reposted from https://unsettlingamerica.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/towards-an-anti-colonial-anarchism/. Despite some of the difficult language this is a nice wee post.
Unnamed anarchist from Europe [interviewer]: Particularly
in Canada, the term “First Nations” is frequently used to describe
Indigenous societies. This tends to confuse radical Europeans who
consider all references to “nations” as necessarily conservative. Can
you shed some light on the Indigenous usage of the term?
Taiaike Alfred from the Mohawk Nation of Kahnawá:ke [interviewee]:
Europeans should not transpose their experience with nationhood on
others. I myself do not think the term accurately describes our people –
only our own languages and words can do that – but it is useful in a
sense; it conveys an equality of status in theory between our societies
and that of the colonizer. And it reiterates the fact of our prior
occupancy of this continent (Alfred, 2010).
The languages that we speak build walls. The English language, for
instance, is noun-based, territorial and possessive by nature. Behind
this language, however, is a distinct way of relating – one that is
exemplified by the interview excerpt above. Sharing a language does not
imply consensus or commonality. In this case, although Taiake Alfred
does not agree in full with the term ‘First Nations’, he does
differentiate First Nation and Indigenous Nationhood from European,
Westphalia conceptions of nation-state. He dually describes why, from
his perspective as a member of the Mohawk Nation from Kahnawá:ke, this
terminology resists Eurocentric impositions of governance but also
responds to colonial power-imbalances. Social movements, especially in
North America, often fall carelessly into colonial traps of Eurocentric
thought and colonial universalism, as exampled above
[1]. On the surface, though, it is clear why anarchist movements and anarchic theory may be attracted to anti-colonial struggles.
Opposition to the state and to capitalism, to domination and to
oppression, are at the core of anarchist and autonomous movements; they
are also at the core of anti-colonial struggles that see the state, and
by mutual extension the capitalist system, as de-legitimate institutions
of authority that ‘Other’ and colonize by way of white supremacist
notions of cultural hegemony (see Fanon, 1967; Smith, 2006). Anarchist
movements, however, often fail to account for the multiple layers of
power that are at play, both contemporarily and historically. As Barker
(2012) critically contends, many of the Occupy sites, for example,
recolonized by uncritically occupying already occupied lands. The
settler privilege of autonomous organizers within these movements upheld
hegemonic/colonial territoriality. Romanticized for stewardship and
place-based relations to land, Indigenous peoples have even been
idolized as the ‘original’ anarchist societies (Barker & Pickerill,
2012). Indigenous Nationhood Movements actively seek to rebuild
nation-to-nation relations with settlers by re-empowering Indigenous
self-determination and traditional governments (Indigenous Nationhood
Movement, 2015). Nation-to-nation, though, cannot be taken in its
settler colonial form; indeed, this assumption concerning a homogenous
form of government was, and is, at the core of colonialism: “modern
government…the European believed, was based upon principles true in
every country. Its strengths lay in its universalism” (Mitchell, 2002:
54). Respecting Indigenous Nationhood as a culturally, politically, and
spiritually distinct movement propelled by and for Indigenous peoples is
integral. Reasons for and tactics in support of these movements may
vary, however they inevitably overlap in many offensives with anarchist
anti-authoritarian agendas.
With Eurocentric understandings of an anti-colonial anarchism at the
core of many activist oriented renditions of such thinking, activists
and scholars alike have heeded words of advice to those amidst struggles
against colonial forces in settler colonial contexts. As stated by
Harsha Walia in discussing autonomy and cross-cultural, colonial-based
struggle:
“Non-natives must recognize our own role in perpetuating colonialism
within our solidarity efforts. We can actively counter this by…
discussing the nuanced issues of solidarity, leadership, strategy and
analysis – not in abstraction, but within our real and informed and
sustained relationships with Indigenous peoples.” (2012)
By respecting difference, even spatializing autonomy, settler peoples
would do well to not transplant – to settle – their perceptions of
autonomy, of solidarity, of leadership, and of strategy onto Indigenous
movements. Alternatively in settler colonial contexts, anarchist
struggles against colonial authority, and thus capitalistic systems,
invariably require respectful engagement with Indigenous movements. This
is integral if re-colonizing tendencies of anarchist
movements–oftentimes primarily driven by European settlers–are to be
prevented. Anarchist actors, especially when operating in settler
colonial spaces, must understand the nuances of place specific histories
and colonial processes. As Lasky suggests, there is “potential for
directly relating to each other and changing our relationships with each
other in ways that withdraw consent from ‘the system’ and re-creates
alternatives that empower our collective personhoods now” (2011: np). As
Alfred mentions however, Eurocentric tendencies have oftentimes
perpetuated colonial relations of power. As a result, the very
structures of oppression that anarchic thought starkly opposes, but also
stemmed from, creep into relational geographies.
By Vanessa Sloan Morgan, Intercontinental Cry
References
Alfred, T. (2010). Interview with Gerald Taiaiake Alfred about Anarchism and Indigenism in North America. Retrieved from http://www.alpineanarchist.org/r_i_indigenism_english.html
Barker, A. (2012). Already Occupied: Indigenous Peoples, Settler Colonialism and the Occupy Movements in North America. Social Movement Studies, 11(3-4), 327–334. doi:10.1080/14742837.2012.708922
Barker, A. J., & Pickerill, J. (2012). Radicalizing Relationships
To and Through Shared Geographies: Why Anarchists Need to Understand
Indigenous Connections to Land and Place. Antipode, 44(5), 1705–1725. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01031.x
Fanon, F. (1967). Black skin, white masks. New York, NY: Grove Press.
Indigenous Nationhood Movement. (2015). About. Retrieved from http://nationsrising.org/about/
Lewis, A. (2012). Decolonizing anarchism: Expanding Anarcha-Indigenism in theory and practice (Masters thesis). Queen’s University, Kingston, ON. Retrieved from http://qspace.library.queensu.ca/bitstream/1974/7563/1/Lewis_Adam_G_201209_MA.pdf
Mitchell, T. (2002). Rule of experts: Egypt, techno-politics, modernity. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Smith, A. (2006). Heteropatriarchy and the three pillars of white supremacy. In Incite! (Ed.), The colour of violence: The INCITE! anthology (pp. 66–73). Cambridge, UK: South End Press.
Walia, H. (2012). Decolonizing together: Moving beyond a politics of solidarity toward a practice of decolonization. Briar Patch, January/February. Retrieved from http://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/decolonizing-together
[1] Adam (Lewis, 2012) explores this topic in depth.
