Reclamation of everything stolen from the original Peoples LANDBACK Organizing
Principles [https://landback.org/manifesto/] 1. Don’t burn bridges: even when
there is conflict between groups or organizers remember that we are fighting for
all of our peoples and we will continue to be in community even after this
battle 2. Don’t defend our ways 3. Organize to win 4. Move from abundance – We
come from a space of scarcity. We must work from a place of abundance 5. We
bring our people with us 6. Deep relationships by attraction, not promotion 7.
Divest/invest 8. We value our warriors 9. Room for grace—be able to be human 10.
We cannot let our oppressors inhumanity take away from ours 11. Strategy
includes guidance 12. Realness: Sometimes the truth hurts 13. Unapologetic but
keep it classy
The movement isn’t saying that every precolonial society was better than ours in every metric, or that we should roll back the clock a thousand years, all it’s saying is that we should work towards giving back what was lost through the countless genocidal policies and violent colonialism that indigenous people across the world have faced.
Also I will say, at least in North America, which I’m most knowledgeable of, many indigenous societies were absolutely far more egalitarian and democratic than most western democracies, but are painted in a far different light when reading of them from the colonial perspective.
“Landback” seems to aim specifically at territorial claims. What system do they propose to implement on these given back lands? Do they propose to reserve it to a given ethnicity? To expropriate and expel those of the wrong one?
Its immediate focus, at least in the US, is sovereignty of indigenous nations where each nation’s land would be defined by current federally recognized reservations which indigenous folk occupy right now. Past that would be working to reverse legislation which has broken up this land, deny resources, repress indigenous culture for those living off reservation etc. I think the discussion of reparations should be had as well but realistically that’s probably a bit far off.
Ideally, in a world where western governments acted in good faith and with care for human life, we would be able to work directly towards returning land traditionally occupied by indigenous folk across the world to them as each peoples/nation saw fit, but realistically this takes the form of returning full sovereignty of what little land is officially recognized as belonging to each indigenous group, and then working from there through community organization, protesting, lobbying etc. to continue working to advance the rights of indigenous folk and repay in some way what has been stolen from them
To your last question, again in the context of the US, many indigenous groups already have their own governments where citizenship is determined how they see fit, some are stricter and go off of the standard of blood quanta which was put in place by the US govt. centuries ago, some go off descent, while others welcome anyone who has a clear cultural connection to the people. Part of returning sovereignty to these nations is allowing them to define citizenship however they see fit.
Ok, so as I initially expected, this is mostly a US proposal to fix the US racist system of reservations within the US system.
I understand the urge, in front of oppression, to try to create a splinter community but do you really feel that creating ethnostate enclaves is a progressist proposal aligned with anarchism?
many indigenous groups already have their own governments where citizenship is determined how they see fit, some are stricter and go off of the standard of blood quanta which was put in place by the US govt. centuries ago, some go off descent, while others welcome anyone who has a clear cultural connection to the people.
Of the 3 system you present, 2 are regressions and 1 is probably to be considered unsustainable as soon as refugees all over the world pretend to have a cultural connection (or is the US citizenship a requirement?). These questions are important to judge if it is a progress of a regression.
I don’t see any reason to believe that “indigenous” is a label that automatically makes a movement progressist and incapable of oppression. Where I am from (France) several independentist movements are actually pretty close to far-right ideas and would just love to have a state and dictate who can come in or not. How do you make sure that you are not creating something like that?
These systems already exist because these indigenous nations already exist with their own governments, and have existed as self determinant, democratic political entities far before the colonization of North America.
It goes far past the reservation system and legally, per treaties signed by the US govt., these nations should be fully sovereign and politically independent. The genocide of a group of people doesn’t make some of their nations policies around citizenship right, but they exist as a direct result of how their governments are forced to operate under the current regressive US reservation system, and as mentioned before, these specific policies are rooted in previous US policy around census data (see Dawes Rolls) which was forced onto them.
It is unfair though to group all indigenous people as being racist or regressive for having rules within their own communities to limit access based on cultural or family background in order to maintain solidarity and survive centuries of genocidal policy that’s continued into the 21st century (see the infiltration of Indigenous leadership by the US govt. in the 20th century, i.e. the Navajo and Hopi). It’s also worth mentioning that all of this goes for the rest of North America along with Oceania due to very similar colonial history.
At the end of the day it really doesn’t matter how one feels about a group’s culture or survival mechanisms a group engaged with in order to recognize that the continued injustice against them should end and that they have a right to autonomy and self determination. It really shouldn’t be controversial, and the issues towards specific indigenous groups and their policies as they are now in the reservation system are separate issues to be covered after they have some form of real autonomy and political separation from state oppression.
Then spread their system to others. If Navajos have a better system that’s more self-determinant, democratic, respectful than what is the norm in western countries then spread these values!
As a European I am shocked by the US habit of doing census according to race. That is racist and that creates a racial society. It makes sense that people from oppressed races want to group up to fight that system. But I don’t see how creating ethno-states does anything else than validating that system.
(This ended up being a ridiculously long post so no worries if you don’t want to read it all but I think I do clear up and expand on a lot of things you’ve mentioned or asked about)
I think on the base level, the link to anarchism lies in the traditional cultural values and forms of organization of these societies took on pre-colonialism, which aren’t able to exist currently due to continued oppression and lack of sovereignty, but these values likely would manifest themselves if they had the space to since a decent amount of indigenous culture has been preserved through the last few centuries.
I’d also like to mention again that it’s really difficult to argue that indigenous nations are ethnostates because they are not states, they are comprised of people of a socially constructed class that was delegated as inferior - forced into this foreign class grouping through colonialism, and the nations which covered an area of a single ethnicity of people (due to natural historical and geological events) predate the notion of racial stratification that was brought in from europe. Indigenous people aren’t brought together by ethnicity, but by the shared experience of how they were treated through the process of colonialism. If following the treaties being honored, and sovereignty being returned to them, the portion of nations which currently do draw lines on ethnicity or heritage continue to do so, then you would be right in those individual cases, but going off of what I’ve seen, read and heard from the indigenous perspective, that’s not very likely to continue once the hand of direct colonial oppression is lifted and communities can rebuild.
On top of that, I think there’s definitely a tendency especially in recent decades for anarchist activism in colonized countries to take a focus on combatting not only systems of direct government control or economic structure, but also the systems of white supremacy and racism that have rooted itself in every facet of daily life through colonialism (one example which you commented on was race and census data, a surprising amount of which has its roots in the “skull size” theories of race from the 19th century) - For the sake of clarity, in most colonized countries, whiteness holds a different meaning than in Europe as it’s usually defined as being an absence of perceived physical and cultural qualities of the other (i.e. Black, Indigenous, Hispanic, etc. folk) instead of being defined on ethnicity and direct, traceable heritage. This is another example of how extensively colonialism has informed our social systems. - It’s important to recognize that it’s not the census policy itself that’s creating white supremacy and racism, but that the policy is a manifestation of those existing systems. Because of this, in the US there’s a good amount of mutual aid and democratic organization by anarchist groups that directly engage with aiding those who have been/are specifically targeted by these systems, rather than engaging indirectly through the lines of class.
I hope I didn’t come off as argumentative or combative because I definitely think there tends to be a hard-to-navigate disconnect in leftist thought and activism between european countries and the americas (both north and south) due to how differently colonialism and white supremacy has manifested itself in our modern societies. A lot of the time it’s hard to have both people be on the same page in conversation. But if you happen to be at all interested in reading some US-centric texts related to this then I could definitely recommend some. I know it’s already exhausting seeing so much of that perspective online though
Sorry for the delayed answer, this message has sat in my inbox for far too long! But it was too polite and informative to keep unanswered.
I think I mostly react to the vagueness of the proposal, and personal mefiance towards references to a mythical past. These have been tools of various far-right factions where I am from and gave me the habit of asking specifics.
I still think it is a good idea to ask what system is proposed by the people who want to overthrow or gain independence from another system.
There are many fucked up things in the US system, but its democratic culture also incorporates a lot of native American democratic practices (that have been whitewashed quite a bit). Obviously a modern indigenous nation/state/country/territory/self-managed zone would not just use traditions and historical constructions but also modernize them. The devil is in the details and on such basis you can build things that go from anarchism to fascist caste societies. It is important to know which we support.
I am totally in support of resisting oppression and colonialism from indigenous people, but that does not mean I will automatically consider good any proposal that comes from them. For instance I am in support of the Tibetans’ struggle but am opposed to the proposal of a buddhist theocracy.
I am very suspicious of people who propose to ditch anti-oppression safeguards as “colonialist ideas” or “western values”. I think freedom of religion, freedom to ditch the “traditional identities” people throw on you at birth are important rights and fear that societies that build themselves in opposition to the “colonial western” values may “forget” to keep these.
I usually think it is easier to fix the current system and fighting oppressions one by one than to design a totally new one from within starting on vague premises.
The movement isn’t saying that every precolonial society was better than ours in every metric, or that we should roll back the clock a thousand years, all it’s saying is that we should work towards giving back what was lost through the countless genocidal policies and violent colonialism that indigenous people across the world have faced.
Also I will say, at least in North America, which I’m most knowledgeable of, many indigenous societies were absolutely far more egalitarian and democratic than most western democracies, but are painted in a far different light when reading of them from the colonial perspective.
“Landback” seems to aim specifically at territorial claims. What system do they propose to implement on these given back lands? Do they propose to reserve it to a given ethnicity? To expropriate and expel those of the wrong one?
Its immediate focus, at least in the US, is sovereignty of indigenous nations where each nation’s land would be defined by current federally recognized reservations which indigenous folk occupy right now. Past that would be working to reverse legislation which has broken up this land, deny resources, repress indigenous culture for those living off reservation etc. I think the discussion of reparations should be had as well but realistically that’s probably a bit far off.
Ideally, in a world where western governments acted in good faith and with care for human life, we would be able to work directly towards returning land traditionally occupied by indigenous folk across the world to them as each peoples/nation saw fit, but realistically this takes the form of returning full sovereignty of what little land is officially recognized as belonging to each indigenous group, and then working from there through community organization, protesting, lobbying etc. to continue working to advance the rights of indigenous folk and repay in some way what has been stolen from them
To your last question, again in the context of the US, many indigenous groups already have their own governments where citizenship is determined how they see fit, some are stricter and go off of the standard of blood quanta which was put in place by the US govt. centuries ago, some go off descent, while others welcome anyone who has a clear cultural connection to the people. Part of returning sovereignty to these nations is allowing them to define citizenship however they see fit.
Ok, so as I initially expected, this is mostly a US proposal to fix the US racist system of reservations within the US system.
I understand the urge, in front of oppression, to try to create a splinter community but do you really feel that creating ethnostate enclaves is a progressist proposal aligned with anarchism?
Of the 3 system you present, 2 are regressions and 1 is probably to be considered unsustainable as soon as refugees all over the world pretend to have a cultural connection (or is the US citizenship a requirement?). These questions are important to judge if it is a progress of a regression.
I don’t see any reason to believe that “indigenous” is a label that automatically makes a movement progressist and incapable of oppression. Where I am from (France) several independentist movements are actually pretty close to far-right ideas and would just love to have a state and dictate who can come in or not. How do you make sure that you are not creating something like that?
These systems already exist because these indigenous nations already exist with their own governments, and have existed as self determinant, democratic political entities far before the colonization of North America.
It goes far past the reservation system and legally, per treaties signed by the US govt., these nations should be fully sovereign and politically independent. The genocide of a group of people doesn’t make some of their nations policies around citizenship right, but they exist as a direct result of how their governments are forced to operate under the current regressive US reservation system, and as mentioned before, these specific policies are rooted in previous US policy around census data (see Dawes Rolls) which was forced onto them.
It is unfair though to group all indigenous people as being racist or regressive for having rules within their own communities to limit access based on cultural or family background in order to maintain solidarity and survive centuries of genocidal policy that’s continued into the 21st century (see the infiltration of Indigenous leadership by the US govt. in the 20th century, i.e. the Navajo and Hopi). It’s also worth mentioning that all of this goes for the rest of North America along with Oceania due to very similar colonial history.
At the end of the day it really doesn’t matter how one feels about a group’s culture or survival mechanisms a group engaged with in order to recognize that the continued injustice against them should end and that they have a right to autonomy and self determination. It really shouldn’t be controversial, and the issues towards specific indigenous groups and their policies as they are now in the reservation system are separate issues to be covered after they have some form of real autonomy and political separation from state oppression.
Then spread their system to others. If Navajos have a better system that’s more self-determinant, democratic, respectful than what is the norm in western countries then spread these values!
As a European I am shocked by the US habit of doing census according to race. That is racist and that creates a racial society. It makes sense that people from oppressed races want to group up to fight that system. But I don’t see how creating ethno-states does anything else than validating that system.
I fail to see the link with anarchism.
(This ended up being a ridiculously long post so no worries if you don’t want to read it all but I think I do clear up and expand on a lot of things you’ve mentioned or asked about)
I think on the base level, the link to anarchism lies in the traditional cultural values and forms of organization of these societies took on pre-colonialism, which aren’t able to exist currently due to continued oppression and lack of sovereignty, but these values likely would manifest themselves if they had the space to since a decent amount of indigenous culture has been preserved through the last few centuries.
I’d also like to mention again that it’s really difficult to argue that indigenous nations are ethnostates because they are not states, they are comprised of people of a socially constructed class that was delegated as inferior - forced into this foreign class grouping through colonialism, and the nations which covered an area of a single ethnicity of people (due to natural historical and geological events) predate the notion of racial stratification that was brought in from europe. Indigenous people aren’t brought together by ethnicity, but by the shared experience of how they were treated through the process of colonialism. If following the treaties being honored, and sovereignty being returned to them, the portion of nations which currently do draw lines on ethnicity or heritage continue to do so, then you would be right in those individual cases, but going off of what I’ve seen, read and heard from the indigenous perspective, that’s not very likely to continue once the hand of direct colonial oppression is lifted and communities can rebuild.
On top of that, I think there’s definitely a tendency especially in recent decades for anarchist activism in colonized countries to take a focus on combatting not only systems of direct government control or economic structure, but also the systems of white supremacy and racism that have rooted itself in every facet of daily life through colonialism (one example which you commented on was race and census data, a surprising amount of which has its roots in the “skull size” theories of race from the 19th century) - For the sake of clarity, in most colonized countries, whiteness holds a different meaning than in Europe as it’s usually defined as being an absence of perceived physical and cultural qualities of the other (i.e. Black, Indigenous, Hispanic, etc. folk) instead of being defined on ethnicity and direct, traceable heritage. This is another example of how extensively colonialism has informed our social systems. - It’s important to recognize that it’s not the census policy itself that’s creating white supremacy and racism, but that the policy is a manifestation of those existing systems. Because of this, in the US there’s a good amount of mutual aid and democratic organization by anarchist groups that directly engage with aiding those who have been/are specifically targeted by these systems, rather than engaging indirectly through the lines of class.
I hope I didn’t come off as argumentative or combative because I definitely think there tends to be a hard-to-navigate disconnect in leftist thought and activism between european countries and the americas (both north and south) due to how differently colonialism and white supremacy has manifested itself in our modern societies. A lot of the time it’s hard to have both people be on the same page in conversation. But if you happen to be at all interested in reading some US-centric texts related to this then I could definitely recommend some. I know it’s already exhausting seeing so much of that perspective online though
Sorry for the delayed answer, this message has sat in my inbox for far too long! But it was too polite and informative to keep unanswered.
I think I mostly react to the vagueness of the proposal, and personal mefiance towards references to a mythical past. These have been tools of various far-right factions where I am from and gave me the habit of asking specifics.
I still think it is a good idea to ask what system is proposed by the people who want to overthrow or gain independence from another system.
There are many fucked up things in the US system, but its democratic culture also incorporates a lot of native American democratic practices (that have been whitewashed quite a bit). Obviously a modern indigenous nation/state/country/territory/self-managed zone would not just use traditions and historical constructions but also modernize them. The devil is in the details and on such basis you can build things that go from anarchism to fascist caste societies. It is important to know which we support.
I am totally in support of resisting oppression and colonialism from indigenous people, but that does not mean I will automatically consider good any proposal that comes from them. For instance I am in support of the Tibetans’ struggle but am opposed to the proposal of a buddhist theocracy.
I am very suspicious of people who propose to ditch anti-oppression safeguards as “colonialist ideas” or “western values”. I think freedom of religion, freedom to ditch the “traditional identities” people throw on you at birth are important rights and fear that societies that build themselves in opposition to the “colonial western” values may “forget” to keep these.
I usually think it is easier to fix the current system and fighting oppressions one by one than to design a totally new one from within starting on vague premises.