Post by wombat on Feb 26, 2015 14:15:11 GMT -5
Here is the last paragraph:
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.
I read this and like a lot of "anti-colonial" anarchist "solutions", there isn't much to it. More of a "new" way of thinking, kind of like "Visualize Whirled Peas" or nu metal.
What I have enjoyed from decolonization and anti-colonial struggles has been some interesting and informative things, another way to frame the context we are in, but there isn't much else to it. I have some thoughts that much of the constant "new" thought comes from universities, like identity politics, where it enjoys a brief period of popularity before fading into a smaller group of zealots as people grow tired of ideas that go no where.
There is no need for an "anti-colonial anarchism". There might be a want to understand the people around you. There might be a reason to challenge concepts of universal values and perhaps better develop an understanding of context and nuance of where we are at. But the very framing of this ignores the context of the same. It assumes the audience for anti-colonial anarchism are either ignorant or naïve and it doesn't move from this position. How can an anti-colonial anarchism matter once the education is over? Can I point out that most indigenous people have been displaced almost everywhere that civilization has touched? Is it only the 500 years of maritime imperialism and colonialism that is still going on today that matters, but not the thousands of years before?
Don't get me wrong, I think the idea that the indigenous American people held ways of life which hold many values I consider exemplary and practiced a way of life that was largely more egalitarian. That viewing the world from the perspective of the first migrations of what became indigenous Americans and how they existed until first contact and what transpired since then has been a horror story can help me see why things are the way they are now. It also helps to understand that our context isn't just a story of people seeking a new life in a land of opportunity and promise. All of this is important. But after this, what then? Get a group of friends together and go to the local Native resource center and tell them we are here to help the war? To point out that the treaties were illegal, find a few token natives and occupy land versus the colonialist nation, inviting native diaspora to aid in the (re-)seizure of stolen land? Organize a mass counter-colonization of Europe and create a New America in Gaul or the British Isles?
I just don't see why it needs to be framed as a new ideology I guess.