"this post/article explores the need for placing colonialism properly in our theory and action, and the proper place is central."
My Thoughts on Leftism: thinking unsettling.
By Alex
There is a problem with the moral verbosity of Canadian leftists and their eurocentric political dogmas imported from England and France etc. They are problematic in the respect that the calls for egalitarianism are based on a specific historical context for a specific culture.
Leftism in Canada uses the narratives of Marxism and British labour history to justify an socialist ethic; however, the history of or the "Americas" is much different. Turtle Island (North America) had the experience of being colonized and there was a territorial fight; by that I mean an eventual genocide against the indigenous populations of the continent by waves of settlers from Imperial nations in Europe, along with the support of allies among the Indigenous nations sometimes employed for wars. There is a difference in ownership of land historically in these situations; the land usurpation was not internal to one cultural/ethnic group or nation. It was collective conflict on another basis than internal class dynamics, which is the basis of Marxism. Moreover Marxist internationalism proposes a blinding of difference to allow settler populations continual benefit from the colonization by presenting an equal right to land for the poor worker and the indigenous alike.
Canadian leftism has historically been silent or inadequate in its dealing with the history of colonialism and genocide. Many Marxists have been theoretically basing their theories on the history of Europe in which they ignore the history of nations, tribes, clans and the like in a view of history that is civilization based, in an industrial agrarian form (though in these states white people are in some form more likely to be the indigenous population). In other words, it ignores the history of how the bourgeoisie state came into being, and the genocides worldwide required.
Marxists theory tacitly accepts the obliteration of our histories and the homogenization of our identities into the working class; the most glaring examples were in Marx's examination of colonialism in British controlled India where he remarked it was necessary (See "On Imperialism in India"). The whole idea of classical Marxism is a linear progression towards a final instance; the concept of dialectics is deterministic. How else could Marx predict the eventual triumph of the working class? Marx's theory of change was so inadequate it could not even properly include the categories termed the lumpen proletariat. For Marx's theory to succeed there has to be the eventual genocide of the Indigenous into the working class or some more mailable lumpen-type. Marx's prediction requires that colonialism succeed, or in the least his theory is grossly inadequate as a central theoretical force for dealing with the context of being an (un)settler. This is largely what Richard Day (in Gramsci is Dead) would view as the defining feature of hegemonic solutions to social change. Or what John Mohawk would describe as the oppression inherent in many western forms of thinking that are based on Utopian thinking ( see Chapter 1 of Utopian Legacies).
These types of discourses are many times still acknowledging and legitimizing a polity based on the appropriation of indigenous land. Similar problems have emerged in Nicaragua, as well as Venezuela. The Sandinista had multiple confrontations with indigenous over land and resources stemming from the fact the organizational equality of citizenship was based upon ignoring the history of colonialism and occupation of Indigenous lands. It leaves the question of claims to ownership and rights to land still tangled up in a history of oppression.
Throughout the Americas different governments have manipulated land policies to threaten or steal indigenous lands. Whether left or right, if the government is organizing property on the basis of full equality, the land issue will not be solved. Leftists must confront the reality that most states in the Americas are built upon this strategy of conquest of racialized populations that have legitimate claims to the land, more so then the colonizing group. For instance a right to equal land distribution in Canada could conflict with treaty rights of many Indigenous to practice their customary way of life, these are concerns that must be addressed in any forward looking revolutionary action.
It is ethically incorrect to base one's fight for freedom and equality upon the harm of other disadvantaged groups. At least that is the class based argument of leftists when it benefits them (socialism). All the privilege that settler populations have is based upon this usurpation and therefore requires a negotiation of the future based upon privileging Indigenous peoples.
In the Canadian context this means recognizing that our social services and our homes and our whole society are built on the land conquered or traded (fairly or not) from indigenous. Our society is as can be visualized built upon a pyre of rotting carcasses of indigenous bodies and the gradual attack on indigenous cultures, leaving broken minds and hearts higher than the rotting visceral mound.
Indigenous struggles on Turtle Island are not something we can have solidarity with the same way that we have solidarity with Palestinians or like we do with Columbian Political Prisoners. Indigenous struggles are part of the minute crevices and roots of our society, their struggles are our struggles and until we turn around and look in the mirror, we are components of the relationships and system that they are struggling against.
At the same time some of our actions are rash and ignorant of history, if I remember my anecdotal history well, the Halimand tract other nations traditional territory. The whole northern portion is on traditional Tionontate territory, they were in a confederacy with the Wendat/Huron (the Halimand tract is also on land belonging to the "Neutral" and Erie as well, possibly some being Anishnaabe as well) which was lost to the Six Nations with help from the British. Historically speaking Mohawks and the other Rotinoshonni came from below the great lakes, and this tract was a present from colonialism. This whole dispute is very similar to that of Afghanistan, where the master is fighting with its unruly vassal, or at least a people that our government feels should subservient to them. Though calling the Iroquois slaves would be falling into a misrepresentation of history. They were and remain one of the political and militant powerhouses of Turtle Island, a model resistant. Their history despite the oppression is still filled with honour, and deserves respect; they shaped the modern history of Turtle Island.
I'm not sure that many of the activists who rushed to Six Nations realized how the land grant came into being, and whether it was a good idea to support a land claim based on a prize for being colonial shock troops in the take over of this island and its defense from the Americans in later years.
Sometimes, I'm not sure I want to fight for the honouring of a treaty based upon the fight between two warring factions and 2 colonial powers. If we want to follow history and not the dictates of war deals that land of Caledonia is Tionontate land, not six nation land in a traditional sense. If we want to give redress to the first conquered its Tionontate Land. However, if we want to honour agreements with our traditional allies and make right on our obligations we have to honour this agreement with the Six Nations.
If we are going to redress historical wrongs, how far do we go back? Do we give the land back to Six Nations and hope they include the Tionontate or do we return it directly to them? Do we give a shit about the historical loss of the Tionontate? If we have a moral responsibility, where does it start and end?
All of these questions are something Settlers must begin to deal with as we approach formulating a broader action plan for challenging the state and the mega projects it advocates, such as the Security and Prosperity Partnership. We as settler radicals need to centrally place how we will deal with history, but we need a fuller picture of it. When we run out to right wrong we need to know what exactly we are dealing with and what our place in it is.
Our government consistently ignores history and its own place in it when "solving the Indian problem", our government negotiates treaties that pit one band against another, harming one to buy off another. The Tsawwassen Treay in BC was but one example of this type of manipulation.
I for one, knowing more of the history still support Six Nations, I want to see them strong and vibrant and leading the charge as they always have. It is up to the Indigenous peoples to internally work out the historical specificities of their location in the world. It is our responsibility to bring the world to a state where concepts like the Two Row Wampum or the Fourth World (as envisioned by George Manuel) can be a feasible principled basis of relations between peoples.
One of the main issues that we in the radical left or anti-authoritarian movement need to do is choose our allies well, and be very loyal to them; we need to make ourselves visible and open to being chosen as allies by the many organizations and groups that are resisting the Canadian state in the name of Indigenous Peoples.
We need to recognize Band Councils are colonial creations in the Indigenous community, and that other groups or organizations may actually be more organic and grassroots in resisting Canadian colonialism/capitalism. We have to develop a nuanced approach to the neocolonial governance structures our former leaders embedded in Indigenous communities, and continually fight the reliance our government has on them when it is possible. By this I mean when more grassroots, spiritual and traditional groups exist that are fighting these colonially imposed bodies we have a collective responsibility to strengthen this fight and advocate for the recognition of traditional governance such as the confederacy in the Six Nations case. This is a solution to the problem of taking leadership that Tom Keefer has identified in his reflections on his experiences with the resistance of Six Nations.
When we have a chance we need to seek out and find allies in the Indigenous grassroots; making true, loyal and honourable alliances with the Native Youth Movement (NYM), and the Wasase Movement may be our best bet as the radical left. These movements represent our mirror in the Indigenous societies, they are resisting the colonial/capitalist created political systems the way many of us are. I'm not saying exclude working with the band councils, since there are times when we have a collective responsibility to support some of their actions, such as the case of the Ardoch First Nations as the resist the forced entry of an Uranium exploration company. However, we need to recognize the existence of forces that are reclaiming freedom from the colonial system we benefit from. We need to learn lessons from these movements, and make ourselves open to the changes and alliances they propose, or simply make ourselves known as potential allies in struggle with a desire to decolonize ourselves.
The Indigenous community due to the actions of our governments are being split on class lines much like our own, and in the NYM and Wasase we see our corresponding class and ideological allies. Taiaiake Alfred (Kanien'kehaka - Kahnawa:ke) identifies the 'aboriginalist' camp (Wasase, 23) as those in the Indigenous community that in compromising with colonialism will eventually lead their people to assimilation; these are analogous to the dangers Frantz Fanon identified as the "national bourgeoisie".
Wasase as a movement has developed through the influence of Anarchism, which places anarchists of the settler variety with an opportunity to gain a neat and fruitful ally that we potentially can share the intimacies of struggle with, if they are open to it. In Issue 62 of New Socialist magazine, Lana Lowe (Dene - Fort Nelson First Nations) describes Wasase as such:
"Rooted in indigenous philosophies, values, and connections to this land and our struggle for freedom and justice, Anarcha-Indigenism takes a critical non-hierarchal, action based, approach to political and economic organising that is inherently non-capitalist, non-statist, pro-feminist, and based on a sustainable relationship to nature."(24) She further explains that they recognize and welcome alliances with the radical left, premised on mutual recognition and a proposed mutual unsettling of colonialism from our respective locations. Taiaiake Alfred himself points out that self-examination is critical to the settler population becoming allies, it is the lack of critical awareness and the lack of examination of who we are and what we do that perpetuates colonial relationships (Wasase, 132).
Learning to work with and alongside Indigenous grassroots resistance will go along way to helping us as a militant opposition to the state/capitalism learn our place in the wider network of struggles taking place globally. It will place us in a context where we can fulfill our responsibilities as helpers of changing a situation our ancestors created, and a concrete way of making the future better.
My Thoughts on Leftism: thinking unsettling.
By Alex
There is a problem with the moral verbosity of Canadian leftists and their eurocentric political dogmas imported from England and France etc. They are problematic in the respect that the calls for egalitarianism are based on a specific historical context for a specific culture.
Leftism in Canada uses the narratives of Marxism and British labour history to justify an socialist ethic; however, the history of or the "Americas" is much different. Turtle Island (North America) had the experience of being colonized and there was a territorial fight; by that I mean an eventual genocide against the indigenous populations of the continent by waves of settlers from Imperial nations in Europe, along with the support of allies among the Indigenous nations sometimes employed for wars. There is a difference in ownership of land historically in these situations; the land usurpation was not internal to one cultural/ethnic group or nation. It was collective conflict on another basis than internal class dynamics, which is the basis of Marxism. Moreover Marxist internationalism proposes a blinding of difference to allow settler populations continual benefit from the colonization by presenting an equal right to land for the poor worker and the indigenous alike.
Canadian leftism has historically been silent or inadequate in its dealing with the history of colonialism and genocide. Many Marxists have been theoretically basing their theories on the history of Europe in which they ignore the history of nations, tribes, clans and the like in a view of history that is civilization based, in an industrial agrarian form (though in these states white people are in some form more likely to be the indigenous population). In other words, it ignores the history of how the bourgeoisie state came into being, and the genocides worldwide required.
Marxists theory tacitly accepts the obliteration of our histories and the homogenization of our identities into the working class; the most glaring examples were in Marx's examination of colonialism in British controlled India where he remarked it was necessary (See "On Imperialism in India"). The whole idea of classical Marxism is a linear progression towards a final instance; the concept of dialectics is deterministic. How else could Marx predict the eventual triumph of the working class? Marx's theory of change was so inadequate it could not even properly include the categories termed the lumpen proletariat. For Marx's theory to succeed there has to be the eventual genocide of the Indigenous into the working class or some more mailable lumpen-type. Marx's prediction requires that colonialism succeed, or in the least his theory is grossly inadequate as a central theoretical force for dealing with the context of being an (un)settler. This is largely what Richard Day (in Gramsci is Dead) would view as the defining feature of hegemonic solutions to social change. Or what John Mohawk would describe as the oppression inherent in many western forms of thinking that are based on Utopian thinking ( see Chapter 1 of Utopian Legacies).
These types of discourses are many times still acknowledging and legitimizing a polity based on the appropriation of indigenous land. Similar problems have emerged in Nicaragua, as well as Venezuela. The Sandinista had multiple confrontations with indigenous over land and resources stemming from the fact the organizational equality of citizenship was based upon ignoring the history of colonialism and occupation of Indigenous lands. It leaves the question of claims to ownership and rights to land still tangled up in a history of oppression.
Throughout the Americas different governments have manipulated land policies to threaten or steal indigenous lands. Whether left or right, if the government is organizing property on the basis of full equality, the land issue will not be solved. Leftists must confront the reality that most states in the Americas are built upon this strategy of conquest of racialized populations that have legitimate claims to the land, more so then the colonizing group. For instance a right to equal land distribution in Canada could conflict with treaty rights of many Indigenous to practice their customary way of life, these are concerns that must be addressed in any forward looking revolutionary action.
It is ethically incorrect to base one's fight for freedom and equality upon the harm of other disadvantaged groups. At least that is the class based argument of leftists when it benefits them (socialism). All the privilege that settler populations have is based upon this usurpation and therefore requires a negotiation of the future based upon privileging Indigenous peoples.
In the Canadian context this means recognizing that our social services and our homes and our whole society are built on the land conquered or traded (fairly or not) from indigenous. Our society is as can be visualized built upon a pyre of rotting carcasses of indigenous bodies and the gradual attack on indigenous cultures, leaving broken minds and hearts higher than the rotting visceral mound.
Indigenous struggles on Turtle Island are not something we can have solidarity with the same way that we have solidarity with Palestinians or like we do with Columbian Political Prisoners. Indigenous struggles are part of the minute crevices and roots of our society, their struggles are our struggles and until we turn around and look in the mirror, we are components of the relationships and system that they are struggling against.
At the same time some of our actions are rash and ignorant of history, if I remember my anecdotal history well, the Halimand tract other nations traditional territory. The whole northern portion is on traditional Tionontate territory, they were in a confederacy with the Wendat/Huron (the Halimand tract is also on land belonging to the "Neutral" and Erie as well, possibly some being Anishnaabe as well) which was lost to the Six Nations with help from the British. Historically speaking Mohawks and the other Rotinoshonni came from below the great lakes, and this tract was a present from colonialism. This whole dispute is very similar to that of Afghanistan, where the master is fighting with its unruly vassal, or at least a people that our government feels should subservient to them. Though calling the Iroquois slaves would be falling into a misrepresentation of history. They were and remain one of the political and militant powerhouses of Turtle Island, a model resistant. Their history despite the oppression is still filled with honour, and deserves respect; they shaped the modern history of Turtle Island.
I'm not sure that many of the activists who rushed to Six Nations realized how the land grant came into being, and whether it was a good idea to support a land claim based on a prize for being colonial shock troops in the take over of this island and its defense from the Americans in later years.
Sometimes, I'm not sure I want to fight for the honouring of a treaty based upon the fight between two warring factions and 2 colonial powers. If we want to follow history and not the dictates of war deals that land of Caledonia is Tionontate land, not six nation land in a traditional sense. If we want to give redress to the first conquered its Tionontate Land. However, if we want to honour agreements with our traditional allies and make right on our obligations we have to honour this agreement with the Six Nations.
If we are going to redress historical wrongs, how far do we go back? Do we give the land back to Six Nations and hope they include the Tionontate or do we return it directly to them? Do we give a shit about the historical loss of the Tionontate? If we have a moral responsibility, where does it start and end?
All of these questions are something Settlers must begin to deal with as we approach formulating a broader action plan for challenging the state and the mega projects it advocates, such as the Security and Prosperity Partnership. We as settler radicals need to centrally place how we will deal with history, but we need a fuller picture of it. When we run out to right wrong we need to know what exactly we are dealing with and what our place in it is.
Our government consistently ignores history and its own place in it when "solving the Indian problem", our government negotiates treaties that pit one band against another, harming one to buy off another. The Tsawwassen Treay in BC was but one example of this type of manipulation.
I for one, knowing more of the history still support Six Nations, I want to see them strong and vibrant and leading the charge as they always have. It is up to the Indigenous peoples to internally work out the historical specificities of their location in the world. It is our responsibility to bring the world to a state where concepts like the Two Row Wampum or the Fourth World (as envisioned by George Manuel) can be a feasible principled basis of relations between peoples.
One of the main issues that we in the radical left or anti-authoritarian movement need to do is choose our allies well, and be very loyal to them; we need to make ourselves visible and open to being chosen as allies by the many organizations and groups that are resisting the Canadian state in the name of Indigenous Peoples.
We need to recognize Band Councils are colonial creations in the Indigenous community, and that other groups or organizations may actually be more organic and grassroots in resisting Canadian colonialism/capitalism. We have to develop a nuanced approach to the neocolonial governance structures our former leaders embedded in Indigenous communities, and continually fight the reliance our government has on them when it is possible. By this I mean when more grassroots, spiritual and traditional groups exist that are fighting these colonially imposed bodies we have a collective responsibility to strengthen this fight and advocate for the recognition of traditional governance such as the confederacy in the Six Nations case. This is a solution to the problem of taking leadership that Tom Keefer has identified in his reflections on his experiences with the resistance of Six Nations.
When we have a chance we need to seek out and find allies in the Indigenous grassroots; making true, loyal and honourable alliances with the Native Youth Movement (NYM), and the Wasase Movement may be our best bet as the radical left. These movements represent our mirror in the Indigenous societies, they are resisting the colonial/capitalist created political systems the way many of us are. I'm not saying exclude working with the band councils, since there are times when we have a collective responsibility to support some of their actions, such as the case of the Ardoch First Nations as the resist the forced entry of an Uranium exploration company. However, we need to recognize the existence of forces that are reclaiming freedom from the colonial system we benefit from. We need to learn lessons from these movements, and make ourselves open to the changes and alliances they propose, or simply make ourselves known as potential allies in struggle with a desire to decolonize ourselves.
The Indigenous community due to the actions of our governments are being split on class lines much like our own, and in the NYM and Wasase we see our corresponding class and ideological allies. Taiaiake Alfred (Kanien'kehaka - Kahnawa:ke) identifies the 'aboriginalist' camp (Wasase, 23) as those in the Indigenous community that in compromising with colonialism will eventually lead their people to assimilation; these are analogous to the dangers Frantz Fanon identified as the "national bourgeoisie".
Wasase as a movement has developed through the influence of Anarchism, which places anarchists of the settler variety with an opportunity to gain a neat and fruitful ally that we potentially can share the intimacies of struggle with, if they are open to it. In Issue 62 of New Socialist magazine, Lana Lowe (Dene - Fort Nelson First Nations) describes Wasase as such:
"Rooted in indigenous philosophies, values, and connections to this land and our struggle for freedom and justice, Anarcha-Indigenism takes a critical non-hierarchal, action based, approach to political and economic organising that is inherently non-capitalist, non-statist, pro-feminist, and based on a sustainable relationship to nature."(24) She further explains that they recognize and welcome alliances with the radical left, premised on mutual recognition and a proposed mutual unsettling of colonialism from our respective locations. Taiaiake Alfred himself points out that self-examination is critical to the settler population becoming allies, it is the lack of critical awareness and the lack of examination of who we are and what we do that perpetuates colonial relationships (Wasase, 132).
Learning to work with and alongside Indigenous grassroots resistance will go along way to helping us as a militant opposition to the state/capitalism learn our place in the wider network of struggles taking place globally. It will place us in a context where we can fulfill our responsibilities as helpers of changing a situation our ancestors created, and a concrete way of making the future better.
Some of this is already emerging in discourses of solidarity; however, its hard to be in solidarity of a struggle you're intimately a part of, like it or not. Our theories and methods need to reflect our locations as settler people; our theories need to be themselves unsettled and decolonized, we need to further privilege the anti-colonial aspect of our theoretical work on dealing with our position as people in territory claimed by the Canadian state. Recognizing we have lots of work to do to move beyond being unwelcome visitors on Turtle Island. By unsettling I mean, looking for how our theories are a product of white supremacy (see Andrea Smith for full definition of white supremacy). We need to make a conscious effort to move beyond our self confidence in our theorizing and reexamine the origins of our world views.
We need to seek out the opportunities to listen and ask questions, this might be the start. We need to recognize as Albert Memmi demonstrated, that we may never feel comfortable in refusing colonialism, the colonizer who refuses is without an identity or sense of place. However, we need to get over ourselves and do all the work that it requires not just the fun parts at the barricades. In my modest interaction with long time NYM members I am just starting to learn what it would be to walk like a warrior, its a lesson I will continually value for a long time to come.
Central Works Cited:
Alfred Taiaiake, Wasase: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom, Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press, 2005.
Fanon Frantz, The Wretched of the Earth, New York: Grove Press, 2004.
Lowe Lana, "Warriors of this Generation: Anarcha-Indigenism and the Wasase Movement", from New Socialist, 62, Fall 2007, pg. 24-25.
Memmi Albert, The Colonizer and the Colonized, Boston: Beacon Press, 1991.
Mohawk John, Utopian Legacies: a History of Conquest and Oppression in the Western World, Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light Publishers, 2000.
Smith Andrea, "Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy: Rethinking Women of Color Organizing", from Colors of Violence the Incite! Anthology, Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2006.
Tucker Robert, The Marx-Engels Reader, New York: W W Norton & Company, 1978.
We need to seek out the opportunities to listen and ask questions, this might be the start. We need to recognize as Albert Memmi demonstrated, that we may never feel comfortable in refusing colonialism, the colonizer who refuses is without an identity or sense of place. However, we need to get over ourselves and do all the work that it requires not just the fun parts at the barricades. In my modest interaction with long time NYM members I am just starting to learn what it would be to walk like a warrior, its a lesson I will continually value for a long time to come.
Central Works Cited:
Alfred Taiaiake, Wasase: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom, Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press, 2005.
Fanon Frantz, The Wretched of the Earth, New York: Grove Press, 2004.
Lowe Lana, "Warriors of this Generation: Anarcha-Indigenism and the Wasase Movement", from New Socialist, 62, Fall 2007, pg. 24-25.
Memmi Albert, The Colonizer and the Colonized, Boston: Beacon Press, 1991.
Mohawk John, Utopian Legacies: a History of Conquest and Oppression in the Western World, Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light Publishers, 2000.
Smith Andrea, "Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy: Rethinking Women of Color Organizing", from Colors of Violence the Incite! Anthology, Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2006.
Tucker Robert, The Marx-Engels Reader, New York: W W Norton & Company, 1978.
1 comment:
Very interesting and thoughtful analysis. I look forward to reading the final draft. It is certainly true what you have written about the settler left and Marxism in general. I have spent a fair amount of time researching the old Socialist Party of Canada, and while they were quite libertarian and militant, nowhere have I seen the slightest awareness that they were living on stolen lands. You could say the same of the later CCF and CP. It was in the 60's with the New Left that we finally became aware of Indigenous issues and the stolen land, but our lack of knowledge of history, the divisions within the First Nations communities and the other issues you mention limited the efectiveness of our solidarity.
Post a Comment