Natives claim to land and the Left?

[StoneFrog]

What are your guys thoughts on Natives claims on land and rights with its relations to the left? Honestly i don't see the correlation with the two, honestly i don't know the full story. Now that i live in Canada it really does come up, especially with the Olympics. I really dont want to come off as a racist or anything, which i end up being called sometimes, its just i only look to equality for the people as a whole not one race/culture/class/nation. With the plight for Native land and Rights how does this help the workers? I'm not saying that they have injustice has not happened to them, it took me a while to really see how much the First Nations were persecuted and was just over looked. Yes i am white, and relatively new to Canada so i don't have all the facts. I would love for any native activist or someone who knows their stuff to maybe help enlighten me.

What i fail to see is whats the difference with a corporation taking control over a certain piece of land and it being designated Native land. I mean, it becomes like if your not a First Nation you should not go near there; because you don't want to intrude. I feel we should be fighting for everyone to have such rights, land controlled by one ethnic group is not what i call fair. Also how is land settlements which pay over money progressing for the left? Is that not trying to gain capitol and using your heritage to gain wealth?

I have heard that, oh you don't know what its like having your ancestors persecuted and ethnically cleansed. But with holding such grudges how will humanity as a whole progress? If socialism came to Canada(or where ever there maybe Native injustice) in what ever form what will happen with these grudges, to be honest i don't see them going away. I only see it hurting the movement as a whole.

Honestly i don't get Native rights at all, they complain about it yet they dont want them taken away. I would really like someone to explain that one to me.


I would like to know from all the Comrades out there how would you like to see the left handle Native issues?


-Wn.M


P.S
I hope i didn't cause offense as i said, i am limited with my knowledge of the situation and would love an opinion of someone who knows the whole story =]

[FreeFocus]

First and foremost, Canada is an imperialist settler state. In this way, it is no different than the United States, Israel, or Australia. It is founded on stolen land and is maintained by the preservation of the status quo and the extension of it. This extension comes in the form of land confiscations, corporate control, etc. Native nations are occupied and controlled by Canada, and often times this control takes the form of the band council system. It disregards traditional indigenous forms of organization and forces a legalistic, deeply hierarchical form of government (essentially, mini-states) on Native nations. This is cultural assault and cultural genocide. Some Natives will argue from this legalistic perspective, for more funding for band councils, for making new treaties, etc - this is not a revolutionary approach and really, Canada doesn't have a problem with this too much. Why should they? Even if a band council "gains control" of a piece of land, they are easily bought out when co-opted by Canadian corporations or the government. Even large Native organizations such as the Assembly of First Nations are controlled by Canada because they are co-opted and financed by Canadian dollars.

While it is easy to say "Native rights have nothing to do with worker's rights," it is not nuanced enough and betrays the speaker's ignorance and settler arrogance. Remember, capitalism did not exist in North America prior to European colonialism. We have the right to be pissed off that this shitty economic system was forced on us. A proper socialist approach to settler imperialism is encouraging Native resistance and putting forth anarchism as the alternative. Yes, it is a very sensitive situation, and when you talk about non-Natives being "intruders," well, they are in a way. Of course the average Joe should not feel the full weight of blame of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Nonetheless, by not even acknowledging that he lives on stolen land, it adds to a general settlerist arrogance that is offensive.

A book you can read to understand treaty history better is The Trail of Broken Treaties by Vine Deloria, Jr. You might also want to read Wasase by Taiaiake Alfred, as he touches on this question a bit from a Native perspective.

As an end note, I generally don't support band councils, but rather the grassroots resistance, like Warrior Societies. Band councils are capitalist, none of them advocate socialism or put forth a strong critique of capitalism at least (well, there's only a handful, which means that the institution itself is not conducive to resistance).

[StoneFrog]

First and foremost, Canada is an imperialist settler state. In this way, it is no different than the United States, Israel, or Australia. It is founded on stolen land and is maintained by the preservation of the status quo and the extension of it. This extension comes in the form of land confiscations, corporate control, etc. Native nations are occupied and controlled by Canada, and often times this control takes the form of the band council system. It disregards traditional indigenous forms of organization and forces a legalistic, deeply hierarchical form of government (essentially, mini-states) on Native nations. This is cultural assault and cultural genocide. Some Natives will argue from this legalistic perspective, for more funding for band councils, for making new treaties, etc - this is not a revolutionary approach and really, Canada doesn't have a problem with this too much. Why should they? Even if a band council "gains control" of a piece of land, they are easily bought out when co-opted by Canadian corporations or the government. Even large Native organizations such as the Assembly of First Nations are controlled by Canada because they are co-opted and financed by Canadian dollars.

While it is easy to say "Native rights have nothing to do with worker's rights," it is not nuanced enough and betrays the speaker's ignorance and settler arrogance. Remember, capitalism did not exist in North America prior to European colonialism. We have the right to be pissed off that this shitty economic system was forced on us. A proper socialist approach to settler imperialism is encouraging Native resistance and putting forth anarchism as the alternative. Yes, it is a very sensitive situation, and when you talk about non-Natives being "intruders," well, they are in a way. Of course the average Joe should not feel the full weight of blame of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Nonetheless, by not even acknowledging that he lives on stolen land, it adds to a general settlerist arrogance that is offensive.

A book you can read to understand treaty history better is The Trail of Broken Treaties by Vine Deloria, Jr. You might also want to read Wasase by Taiaiake Alfred, as he touches on this question a bit from a Native perspective.

As an end note, I generally don't support band councils, but rather the grassroots resistance, like Warrior Societies. Band councils are capitalist, none of them advocate socialism or put forth a strong critique of capitalism at least (well, there's only a handful, which means that the institution itself is not conducive to resistance).

I thank you for your reply, i think i am starting to get the picture.
I see only a non state approach could really work for Natives, which i am totally on board with. The thing i am not sure on how will the First Nations and the rest of the people in NA live together? As you said its more the State and the Church that has contributed towards the tragedies, so how will the workers live along side the First Nations? I know many hold a big grudge towards anyone of European decent, how will this be handled?

I was doing some reading on warrior societies, what came up which i was not sure on is that some societies such as the Mohawk Warrior Society, evicted unwanted people living with in their territory. Who are these people, are they just people from the state or more broadly anyone not First Nation?

I thank you again, it is a issue that has to be dealt with and is not exclusively a NA issue. I am just trying to learn as much as i can :)

[Lenny Nista]

Surely the mass of workers should take up the demands of the most oppressed and impvoerished communities, rather than just denounce them as "divisive".

[FreeFocus]

I thank you for your reply, i think i am starting to get the picture.
I see only a non state approach could really work for Natives, which i am totally on board with. The thing i am not sure on how will the First Nations and the rest of the people in NA live together? As you said its more the State and the Church that has contributed towards the tragedies, so how will the workers live along side the First Nations? I know many hold a big grudge towards anyone of European decent, how will this be handled?

I was doing some reading on warrior societies, what came up which i was not sure on is that some societies such as the Mohawk Warrior Society, evicted unwanted people living with in their territory. Who are these people, are they just people from the state or more broadly anyone not First Nation?

I thank you again, it is a issue that has to be dealt with and is not exclusively a NA issue. I am just trying to learn as much as i can :)

Natives are workers too, you know..

[StoneFrog]

Natives are workers too, you know..

I know, i meant the Non Native workers living along side Native Workers. I apologize for that, i didn't mean any offense by that.

[Uppercut]

I am of Native American heritage, myself. Personally, I would love to see more reserves being built, especially cooperatives and communal-type establishments. Of course, there is the issue of who owns the land, presently. I don't think it's fair to kick people off their land, exactly. However, you do have people that own acres and acres of unused land that once belonged to a tribe. In that case, I think an agreement will have to be reached, where the land will be divided up rationally.

On the other hand, if we're talking about state property, it's much simpler. Building an Indian reserve on vancant government land would be much easier and probably less painstaking than cooperating with some fancy-pants landlord.

There just aren't that many reserves around these days, and I live in PA. We need land for our oppressed peoople! lol

[FreeFocus]

I don't think living side-by-side is an issue, what is an issue is Natives on reserves not having treaty rights to fish or hunt honored, or having running water, or having their resources siphoned off by a corporation. This is the imperialist aspect. Natives in urban centers have to deal with the same crushing poverty others have to deal with.

In a stateless, classless society, there still may be some bad feelings, but there wouldn't be an imperialist settler state in existence, the oppressive institutions that furthered imperialism for hundreds of years would be gone, and Native communities would be free to use their resources as needed. Traditional forms of organization could return (which were, by the way, typically some form of anarchism. People will debate this, but I don't think you need to have capitalism before socialism).

The main issues are the imperialist state and ingrained settlerist arrogance; however, without an imperialist state, imperial culture and attitudes would also fade away - or at least they should, given that this would be preceded by a revolutionary period which placed an emphasis on humanism, internationalism, and justice.


I am of Native American heritage, myself. Personally, I would love to see more reserves being built, especially cooperatives and communal-type establishments. Of course, there is the issue of who owns the land, presently. I don't think it's fair to kick people off their land, exactly. However, you do have people that own acres and acres of unused land that once belonged to a tribe. In that case, I think an agreement will have to be reached, where the land will be divided up rationally.

On the other hand, if we're talking about state property, it's much simpler. Building an Indian reserve on vancant government land would be much easier and probably less painstaking than cooperating with some fancy-pants landlord.

There just aren't that many reserves around these days, and I live in PA. We need land for our oppressed peoople! lol

The problem is that this is also a type of legalistic approach. "Building" more reservations/reserves is not helpful necessarily. Band councils/tribal governments are jokes, and we need less of them, not more. You really think governments would set up reserves that follow a traditional governance/organizational structure, or that are cooperatives or communal establishments?

If you want some interesting reading, read up on Ganienkeh. That is a model that resembles what you support, minus the state co-opting it.

[Uppercut]

The problem is that this is also a type of legalistic approach. "Building" more reservations/reserves is not helpful necessarily. Band councils/tribal governments are jokes, and we need less of them, not more. You really think governments would set up reserves that follow a traditional governance/organizational structure, or that are cooperatives or communal establishments?

If you want some interesting reading, read up on Ganienkeh. That is a model that resembles what you support, minus the state co-opting it.

I'm just going by theory. Yes, it's very unlikely that a capitalist state would just "hand off" land to Natives, but isn't that what they should do?
After all, if they really cared about reparations, I think we would see more of it.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'm just going by theory. Yes, it's very unlikely that a capitalist state would just "hand off" land to Natives, but isn't that what they should do?
After all, if they really cared about reparations, I think we would see more of it.

"Fuck welfare, we say reparations!" ~Dead Prez

[cyu]

From Reconciling Property Rights with Conquest (http://everything2.com/title/Reconciling+Property+Rights+with+Conquest):

There are many definitions of theft – different societies have different laws governing control over objects and resources. This control is basically how property is defined. Different kinds of laws mean different concepts of property. Some wealthy property owners, when confronted with the possibility that the (more numerous) poor may vote for higher taxes on the wealthy, will argue that taxation is theft. Other less wealthy people, particularly those who work under someone else, may believe exploitation is theft. Then there's Proudhon's famous declaration that, "Property is theft."

The following are reactions to the concept of conquest from two different types of pro-capitalists.

Ownership Through Conquest is Justified

This view claims that conquest is justified because the conqueror risked his life (or at least risked the lives of his minions) in battle, and thus has earned the right to control.

However, these pro-capitalists are opposed to the concept of an anti-capitalist revolution, claiming that would be a violation of their property rights. If employees "conquer" their places of work by escorting their boss off company premises, these pro-capitalists do not see that as a "legitimate" form of conquest.

Ownership Through Conquest is Not Justified

Other pro-capitalists do not believe conquest is justified and yet they oppose returning conquered land and resources to the natives (or their descendents). They believe conquest is an injustice, but do not have a good idea of how to rectify that injustice.

Conquest results in wealth for the conquerors. Then that wealth is distributed to cronies and offspring. On and on it goes - not just in this country, but around the world. If you trace back the history of ownership of land and resources, how much of it doesn't originate in conquest (or what some would call theft)?

How far back do you have to go before you consider property valid? If one group of Australopithecus or Cro-Magnon conquered land from another group of Australopithecus or Cro-Magnon, do their ancestors have to return it? If not, why not? Is there a "statute of limitations"? If so, how many years does it have to be, and who decides on this number?

Why Have Society?

Personally, I don't (that's right, don't) support giving back everything to the natives (or their descendants). Instead, I assert that the resources be used for the benefit of everyone in that area, whether it's later settlers, recent immigrants, the natives, whatever. Human beings form societies in order to protect themselves. The point of the political, economic, and religious systems they set up is to benefit as many of the individuals in the population as possible. Because property requires society to enforce it, why should society enforce something that is not beneficial to it? It is not an "axiomatic" right - if it has become perverted to the point at which it is judged no longer beneficial, then it (or at least parts of it) should be dispensed with - especially if it is causing the death of others.

[StoneFrog]

From Reconciling Property Rights with Conquest (http://everything2.com/title/Reconciling+Property+Rights+with+Conquest):

There are many definitions of theft – different societies have different laws governing control over objects and resources. This control is basically how property is defined. Different kinds of laws mean different concepts of property. Some wealthy property owners, when confronted with the possibility that the (more numerous) poor may vote for higher taxes on the wealthy, will argue that taxation is theft. Other less wealthy people, particularly those who work under someone else, may believe exploitation is theft. Then there's Proudhon's famous declaration that, "Property is theft."

The following are reactions to the concept of conquest from two different types of pro-capitalists.

Ownership Through Conquest is Justified

This view claims that conquest is justified because the conqueror risked his life (or at least risked the lives of his minions) in battle, and thus has earned the right to control.

However, these pro-capitalists are opposed to the concept of an anti-capitalist revolution, claiming that would be a violation of their property rights. If employees "conquer" their places of work by escorting their boss off company premises, these pro-capitalists do not see that as a "legitimate" form of conquest.

Ownership Through Conquest is Not Justified

Other pro-capitalists do not believe conquest is justified and yet they oppose returning conquered land and resources to the natives (or their descendents). They believe conquest is an injustice, but do not have a good idea of how to rectify that injustice.

Conquest results in wealth for the conquerors. Then that wealth is distributed to cronies and offspring. On and on it goes - not just in this country, but around the world. If you trace back the history of ownership of land and resources, how much of it doesn't originate in conquest (or what some would call theft)?

How far back do you have to go before you consider property valid? If one group of Australopithecus or Cro-Magnon conquered land from another group of Australopithecus or Cro-Magnon, do their ancestors have to return it? If not, why not? Is there a "statute of limitations"? If so, how many years does it have to be, and who decides on this number?

Why Have Society?

Personally, I don't (that's right, don't) support giving back everything to the natives (or their descendants). Instead, I assert that the resources be used for the benefit of everyone in that area, whether it's later settlers, recent immigrants, the natives, whatever. Human beings form societies in order to protect themselves. The point of the political, economic, and religious systems they set up is to benefit as many of the individuals in the population as possible. Because property requires society to enforce it, why should society enforce something that is not beneficial to it? It is not an "axiomatic" right - if it has become perverted to the point at which it is judged no longer beneficial, then it (or at least parts of it) should be dispensed with - especially if it is causing the death of others.


Yeah thats where i was coming from

[Plagueround]

I wish I had an easy answer for this question.

The problem with the idea of discarding all past woes and just "sharing from this point on" is that it requires the natives to hope that the non-native majority respects their culture and resources instead of trampling all over them. Even with the number of people these days that claim to be sympathetic to native views and rights, very few have taken the time to talk to us and ask what we want. They instead assume that they can engineer schemes of capitalist or socialism around us and we'll just have to bend to whatever the majority decides is their preferred form of government at the time. For example, many land holdings taken from native people are sacred to them and have more value to them than any resource based viewpoint. Is the usage of these resources justified if they're taking from other people who derive a different type of value from them than you? Do you cede portions of the land back to these tribes and risk the chance that they'll not use them in the most efficient or "socialist" way (or not use them)? Or do you use them irrespective of their views because you see it as benefiting a larger population? As for giving back land, it really shouldn't be as difficult as some are making out to be in a lot of cases, a good portion of the crushing land theft took place in the 20th century, we've got the records and can use them, and I'm sure there wouldn't be much objection to turning over capitalist landholdings.

Personally, I think the answer is to reconstitute Indian nations as sovereign nations and not this quasi self-governed form of reservation or trust land that the US and Canada seem to favor. I've been working on a more detailed description, but I'm afraid that will have to wait. Within Indian nations, I agree with FreeFocus in that we ourselves shouldn't accept a system that was forced on us, and should go back to the non-capitalist, grassroots and organic democracy our nations once possessed.

[FreeFocus]

I wish I had an easy answer for this question.

The problem with the idea of discarding all past woes and just "sharing from this point on" is that it requires the natives to hope that the non-native majority respects their culture and resources instead of trampling all over them. Even with the number of people these days that claim to be sympathetic to native views and rights, very few have taken the time to talk to us and ask what we want. They instead assume that they can engineer schemes of capitalist or socialism around us and we'll just have to bend to whatever the majority decides is their preferred form of government at the time. For example, many land holdings taken from native people are sacred to them and have more value to them than any resource based viewpoint. Is the usage of these resources justified if they're taking from other people who derive a different type of value from them than you? Do you cede portions of the land back to these tribes and risk the chance that they'll not use them in the most efficient or "socialist" way (or not use them)? Or do you use them irrespective of their views because you see it as benefiting a larger population? As for giving back land, it really shouldn't be as difficult as some are making out to be in a lot of cases, most of the dramatic and crushing land theft took place in the 20th century, we've got the records and can use them, and I'm sure there wouldn't be much objection to turning over capitalist landholdings.

Personally, I think the answer is to reconstitute Indian nations as sovereign nations and not this quasi self-governed form of reservation or trust land that the US and Canada seem to favor. I've been working on a more detailed description, but I'm afraid that will have to wait.

Good point about the 20th century confiscations, which usually took the form of legal, procedural theft.

The entire "trust lands" is paternalistic imperialism. Native nations were recognized, even by the nascent American empire in the late 1700s, as independent nations. It was only when we were weakened enough that this was disregarded and Congress wrote away Native nationhood. I mean, it's all a fucking joke, honestly.

Ward Churchill, for example, dismisses the left because of its Eurocentric viewpoint, and frankly he has a point. The modern left largely developed in Europe. Leftist theory was created by Europeans, in a then-European world, for European problems. Even as an anarchist, I can see this in anarchism, as people will call for "No borders, no nations" - failing to distinguish between nations and states. To some extent, in Europe, this is explained by the initial wave of Christianization and the wiping out of original European cultures. Then later on you have the development of the state and all of its connections with the Church and capitalism, but they lack the original basis of a nation due to Christianization. I will surely tolerate no efforts to abolish my nation, that's called genocide, and American imperialism has made enough attempts at it.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Traditionally I don't think that the Left (or at least parts of the Left) has been very concerned about the concept of nations, because the emphasis is put on people's class identity as workers, rather than their ethnic identity of being Cherokee, or French, or Slavic, or what have you.

[blake 3:17]

What i fail to see is whats the difference with a corporation taking control over a certain piece of land and it being designated Native land. I mean, it becomes like if your not a First Nation you should not go near there; because you don't want to intrude. I feel we should be fighting for everyone to have such rights, land controlled by one ethnic group is not what i call fair. Also how is land settlements which pay over money progressing for the left? Is that not trying to gain capitol and using your heritage to gain wealth?

These are very tricky questions on certain levels, not so hard on others. There is a significant layer of an aborginal bureaucratic/capitalist class emerging in Canada. Dealing with this from the Left does not imply any disrespect for aboriginal claims.

For a basic analysis and set of demands around native rights I'd look to Defenders Of the Land : http://www.defendersoftheland.org/about

I've been involved in native rights issues for a few years now, and there are contradictions which emerge, but I don't think they are antithetical to social justice being achieved in Canada.

I'd be wary of holding oppressed nations to higher ethical standards than we do oppressing nations. That doesn't mean we can't be critical or supportive of the class struggle on the reserves. To support a national liberation struggle doesn't mean that we have to agree with anything and everything that a certain portion of its leadership does. Within the official leadership, primarily the AFN, but also the other 5 or 6 significant bodies, there is a lot of disagreement.



I have heard that, oh you don't know what its like having your ancestors persecuted and ethnically cleansed. But with holding such grudges how will humanity as a whole progress? If socialism came to Canada(or where ever there maybe Native injustice) in what ever form what will happen with these grudges, to be honest i don't see them going away. I only see it hurting the movement as a whole.

Honestly i don't get Native rights at all, they complain about it yet they dont want them taken away. I would really like someone to explain that one to me.

I could read the above and be offended by it but won't be. The issues are confusing. Acknowledging differences should be no barrier to socialism. Settler cultures in Canada and the US have almost completely destroyed different ways of living and being. So there is a two pronged approach -- the first being reparations and basic material aid to impoverished First Nations, the second being demand for both political and cultural rights for native peoples. How this plays out exactly isn't any clearer than any other struggle for social justice.

The formation of the Red Power movement in the 60s was in opposition to the elimination of the racist Indian Act. Despite its terrible problems it does act as a buffer against the market and the state.

Again please take a look at the link above -- I think it is a very decent program for the time being. Quite a few of the more leftwing unions in Canada have either endorsed it or have endorsed events promoting the statement of principles.

[StoneFrog]

I am starting to think there is no real one size fits all solution, its something that has to be dealt with by individual communities.
I was also looking at the term "nation" in the wrong way as well, linking it more to the term "state" thanks for that FreeFocus.

Even more so now, i think only a no state socialist solution can help address these issues. Do you guys feel the same? Or am i wrong?

[Nathanromml]

Well...right now we should care about establishing a new Soviet Union and liberating the world from the tyranny of capitalism....we shall deal with the natives issue later.

In my opinion,if we,communists,succeed at our great mission,the natives can have their territory back....as long as they accept communist ideology,of course.

[FreeFocus]

Well...right now we should care about establishing a new Soviet Union and liberating the world from the tyranny of capitalism....we shall deal with the natives issue later.

In my opinion,if we,communists,succeed at our great mission,the natives can have their territory back....as long as they accept communist ideology,of course.

lol, establishing a new Soviet Union. No thanks, tankie. And the bold part? Are you serious?

[Mr. Happy]

Native people in North America went from sixty million to about eight hudread thousand after Europeans invaded. That to me is the biggest genocide the world has ever witnessed. At least now, when we are striving for a more "moral" society we should respect the fact that Native Indians have a culture of their own which cannot be maintained unless they have their own land to live on and thrive, without Macdonalds and Gap at every corner. Us (the Europeans) have taken almost everything from them (including many of their lives), it is time to give back.

[ls]

lol, establishing a new Soviet Union. No thanks, tankie. And the bold part? Are you serious?

Obviously his conception of "forcing communism onto those natives or they can gtfo" is mistaken and a bit racist/idiotic, but the idea of a worker's council union is fine so there is nothing inherently wrong with that at all and that's what existed in Russia and its neighbours at first - a union of worker's councils that had congresses on a national and a 'union' level, so I don't think he is right about 'nations have to do this or we'll tell them to get lost!', because real socialism doesn't really do that whatsoever, it recognises and in a sense transcends the concept of nations but simultaneously gives real power to the workers.

The disgusting reservations that many Native American Indians live on are just that - disgusting, they shouldn't exist just as slums should not exist, I've heard that there isn't much activism on them and frankly, it makes me quite sick and sad. They are definitely places that the Left needs to work on, they are very much part of the exploited north American working-class and they (the American Indian working-class) need to liberate themselves, just as much as any "white blue-collar American" needs to liberate her or himself!

[scarletghoul]

Well...right now we should care about establishing a new Soviet Union and liberating the world from the tyranny of capitalism....we shall deal with the natives issue later.

In my opinion,if we,communists,succeed at our great mission,the natives can have their territory back....as long as they accept communist ideology,of course.
Man, your condescending tone is pretty incorrect. Like "we" are the civilised revolutionaries who generously decide when to give "the natives" their land. You can't "liberate the world" and "deal with the natives issue later"; solving the native american question is a vital part of the struggle to world liberation. Further, it will be done by the natives themselves, not by some allpowerful force of benevlent yet presumably supreme white communists imposing our civilised ways on them. Its a really patronising and racist position to take. Any successful revolutionary struggle in the USA will have to involve all races and communities, including the Native Amerikans, and any solution to the racial problems of the USA will have to involve all the peoples and communities determining their own destiny.

If you wanna go about "establishing a new Soviet Union", then you should know that the national question was one of the most important issues in creating the USSR

[Glenn Beck]

Aside from the obnoxious phrasing of Nathanromml's post, and the privileged nonsense about "leaving the native struggle for later", what is so objectionable about the idea of integrating natives (constituted as sovereign nations as proposed by Plagueround) into a "New Soviet Union" (democratic federation of worker's republics)? I would imagine such an arrangement would be the best of both worlds, giving the indian nations sovereignty over their land as a nation along with the right to the protection and perpetuation of their culture while still allowing them to constructively integrate with the settler-descendant and immigrant majorities as equal partners.

[FreeFocus]

I'm pretty sure he's a Stalinist and is advocating reviving the old Soviet Union, not establishing a union of socialist federations or the like. If he was advocating the latter, he could have just said that..

[Wolf Larson]

I'm currently reading 'No Trespassing' by Anders Corr. It's a great book on "squatting, land strikes and struggles worldwide" as the title indicates. Human beings should have a choice to reject industrial society but revolutionaries should rightly know one cannot reject capitalism unless it is abolished. Collectively organizing the means of production under a state structure while forcing people into the system is, well, not very appealing to many people.

Forcing indigenous people to work in factories would be just as tyrannical as capitalism. Human beings should have a choice as to the city or countryside. Many people think the city and countryside should be blended. Whatever the specific community pleases so long as it's not a hierarchical system based in property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury it should be acceptable. I just started studying the beginning of civilization in the ancient city 'Caral'. They lived free of governmnet and warfare for 1000 years. A peaceful civilization FOR ONE THOUSAND YEARS. Many capitalist bourgeois archeologists have projected their current world view onto the people of Caral but I've come to see they were successful because they practiced mutual aid and trade. mutual aid societies that practice trade of goods between fishermen, craftsmen and farmers [not capitalism] should be acceptable in any revoloutiobaries mind.

[Glenn Beck]

I'm pretty sure he's a Stalinist
1. What's a Stalinist 2. So what?


and is advocating reviving the old Soviet Union

Well that's pretty impossible especially for someone who doesn't even live in the ex-eastern bloc but what baffles me is:


not establishing a union of socialist federations or the like.

Considering that, flawed as it was, a federated union of worker's republics was exactly what the USSR sought out to become

Anyway, more relevant to the topic at hand; it's a very thorny issue to contemplate not only the rights of american natives but matters of race relations in the context of a post revolutionary society. I find it a naive and somewhat disturbing trend (because of the privileged laden assumptions often presented) among leftists to either "postpone" the rectification of social inequalities outside of the system of wage labor or assume that we can forget about the past and focus on a sort of "equal opportunity workerism" that is in effect color-blind. I find this latter assumption especially to shamefully parallel the rhetoric we hear from liberals about a "post-racial" America and to be clearly the product of a mind that views social oppression as a matter of secondary importance in comparison to the grievances of more privileged segments of the working class that become automatically taken for the "norm". I can't help but to see a whole worldview implied in such attitudes that I find pretty goddamn problematic.

[the last donut of the night]

This a very interesting issue throughout the Americas. It also is an issue in Brazil, where natives have been historically oppressed in the name of settler imperialism. Today, the remaining ones are under the threat of environmental degradation and cultural genocide. Some have lost their languages and have lost their homes to logging and mining sites. Some haven't even seen the 'white man'. An issue in Brazil is whether the land reserves of the natives should be expanded or not, or given more sovereignty, and the right-wing likes of Veja constantly dish out their racist and bigoted propaganda against it. I believe the answer is in giving the native peoples' their nationhood back. They should be seen as sovereign and independent. Ignoring these peoples' right to national power amounts to racism, because it denies them the right to mess with their own problems and it imposes the idea that somehow we revolutionaries know better than them.

[Agnapostate]

When I post on Stormfront, I do routinely advocate the expulsion of all persons of European descent from America and repatriation of them to Europe, as the acquisition of territory and resources by means of force and fraud is ethically illegitimate, and they are interloping trespassers that ought to be removed. They have a tendency to laugh at this because they perceive that Native Americans constitute a small percentage of the U.S. population, but if we consider the predominantly Indian countries of America (including Mexico, which lies directly to the South and contains tens of millions of persons of indigenous descent), our numbers are considerably boosted, and as we've all gained a common trait in having been universally dispossessed, we will unite together and violently expel the encroaching ones if it should become necessary.

In seriousness? It's not possible to just "forget the past" when it's created consequences that last into this modern period. There do seem to be common sentiments of, "We are not responsible for the crimes of our ancestors," and protests that reparations are not possible because of the deaths of the original sinners. These claims miss a very simple point; the purpose of reparations is compensatory rather than punitive. And can it be said with even a shred of plausibility that illiteracy would be as pervasive on the Navajo reservation as it is or unemployment as pervasive on the Pine Ridge reservation as it is or poverty as crippling in the Mixtec-populated Mexican state of Oaxaca and Tzotzil-populated Mexican state of Chiapas as it is without the catastrophe of dispossession having occurred?

[Nathanromml]

I'm a ''Stalinist''?Of course I am!This is the only way communism can be established and survive.''Liberal social republics'' idea is a fable.
Pure ''natives'' are long extinct....giving their descendants territory that once belonged to their ancestors would just be a social justice for justice sake,nothing more.Of course,if they want to live like primitive savages.Witch I doubt...but still,they would have a choice.
But firstly they would have to accept Communist system.Spreading it to every corner of the world should be the main and the most important issue of every revolutionary leftist.More important than some descendants of savages personal issues.

[Agnapostate]

It seems you can't do anything other than repeat some stereotypical misconceptions. I see you headed to OI and/or a ban, though don't blame me.

[StoneFrog]

I'm a ''Stalinist''?Of course I am!This is the only way communism can be established and survive.''Liberal social republics'' idea is a fable.
Pure ''natives'' are long extinct....giving their descendants territory that once belonged to their ancestors would just be a social justice for justice sake,nothing more.Of course,if they want to live like primitive savages.Witch I doubt...but still,they would have a choice.
But firstly they would have to accept Communist system.Spreading it to every corner of the world should be the main and the most important issue of every revolutionary leftist.More important than some descendants of savages personal issues.


sickens me.

This is how the left gets a bad image, your taking the same stance as imperialists; suppressing the First nations. This view of take my view or nothing isn't what communism is about, its about the people. There are many forms of communism out there, are you saying if they HAVE to accept your interpretation? I guess this is no new concept for the libertarians; Leninist, Maoists love to force the state onto them.


How are the "pure natives" extinct?

[Scary Monster]

I'm a ''Stalinist''?Of course I am!This is the only way communism can be established and survive.''Liberal social republics'' idea is a fable.
Pure ''natives'' are long extinct....giving their descendants territory that once belonged to their ancestors would just be a social justice for justice sake,nothing more.Of course,if they want to live like primitive savages.Witch I doubt...but still,they would have a choice.
But firstly they would have to accept Communist system.Spreading it to every corner of the world should be the main and the most important issue of every revolutionary leftist.More important than some descendants of savages personal issues.

You ignorant little fuck. How would this be any better than capitalist imperialism! By the way, im half native american. My mom is full blooded native and so is her entire family. And there are plenty of us still around. So we are not "extinct". Get your head out of your ass. You wouldnt last long around me spouting your arrogant white superiority bullshit.

Anyywayyyzz...Communism thats forced by the barrel of a gun, violating an entire population's right to sovereignty, would be just as bad as neocolonialism and capitalism. If its implemented this way, it would just be benefiting the industrialized populations (whether they be communist or capitalist) rather than all people. And by benefiting only industrialized societies, i mean dispossessing sovereign populations in order to take their resources they may be living off of.

[Robocommie]

I'm a ''Stalinist''?Of course I am!This is the only way communism can be established and survive.''Liberal social republics'' idea is a fable.
Pure ''natives'' are long extinct....giving their descendants territory that once belonged to their ancestors would just be a social justice for justice sake,nothing more.Of course,if they want to live like primitive savages.Witch I doubt...but still,they would have a choice.
But firstly they would have to accept Communist system.Spreading it to every corner of the world should be the main and the most important issue of every revolutionary leftist.More important than some descendants of savages personal issues.

You sound like a complete asshole.

[the last donut of the night]

I'm a ''Stalinist''?Of course I am!This is the only way communism can be established and survive.''Liberal social republics'' idea is a fable.
Pure ''natives'' are long extinct....giving their descendants territory that once belonged to their ancestors would just be a social justice for justice sake,nothing more.Of course,if they want to live like primitive savages.Witch I doubt...but still,they would have a choice.
But firstly they would have to accept Communist system.Spreading it to every corner of the world should be the main and the most important issue of every revolutionary leftist.More important than some descendants of savages personal issues.

Since I'm too pissed to write a coherent response, here ya go, champ:

http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/middle-finger.jpg

[Robocommie]

When I post on Stormfront, I do routinely advocate the expulsion of all persons of European descent from America and repatriation of them to Europe, as the acquisition of territory and resources by means of force and fraud is ethically illegitimate, and they are interloping trespassers that ought to be removed. They have a tendency to laugh at this because they perceive that Native Americans constitute a small percentage of the U.S. population, but if we consider the predominantly Indian countries of America (including Mexico, which lies directly to the South and contains tens of millions of persons of indigenous descent), our numbers are considerably boosted, and as we've all gained a common trait in having been universally dispossessed, we will unite together and violently expel the encroaching ones if it should become necessary.

A good friend of mine is a Mexican, and a Pan-Americanist, sortof like how Che was. He pointed something out to me; Mexico is largely dominated by mestizos, who are defined as a racial mix of Europeans and First Nations people. In Canada they call them metis, of course.

He then points out to me, all the white Americans in this country who claim to have Indian ancestry at some point. Supposedly, I'm descended from Chief Blackhawk. My cousin's got an Indian great-grandfather. A friend of mine has an Indian grandfather. My sister in law, her father is part Indian and it shows in his face.

We, as Americans, in the United States, are mestizos, just like Mexico. The First Nations left a staggering legacy on this nation, that the history books in grammar school NEVER teach. And every year that goes by without trying to make amends for the past and set things right, by giving the First Nations people what they need to be autonomous and to prosper, we dishonor ourselves.

[Agnapostate]

A good friend of mine is a Mexican, and a Pan-Americanist, sortof like how Che was. He pointed something out to me; Mexico is largely dominated by mestizos, who are defined as a racial mix of Europeans and First Nations people. In Canada they call them metis, of course.

He then points out to me, all the white Americans in this country who claim to have Indian ancestry at some point. Supposedly, I'm descended from Chief Blackhawk. My cousin's got an Indian great-grandfather. A friend of mine has an Indian grandfather. My sister in law, her father is part Indian and it shows in his face.

We, as Americans, in the United States, are mestizos, just like Mexico. The First Nations left a staggering legacy on this nation, that the history books in grammar school NEVER teach. And every year that goes by without trying to make amends for the past and set things right, by giving the First Nations people what they need to be autonomous and to prosper, we dishonor ourselves.

I wouldn't agree with that assessment, actually. If we're to define "mestizos" as a person with any racial admixture, then effectively every individual outside of genetically isolated populations is a mestizo, which is also Stormfront's dirty little secret (you're only mixed if you mention it on there, as that supposedly indicates the level of your obsession with the fact :lol:).

The majority of Mexicans are "mestizos," but they're predominantly Indian rather than mixed half-and-half (70% on average; far higher in some southern states and lower in northern states). As a result, I'd say that it's inaccurate to regard them as "mestizos" instead of Indians, just as it would be rather silly to regard African-Americans as "mulattoes" rather than blacks since they are on average 20% white. And since darker skin tones still tend to dominate in half-breeds (our president is certainly "black" despite being a mulatto), I would even incorporate them into the race that they'd be assumed to be.

http://www.indigenouspeople.net/indios.htm


Many governments define "Indians" as people who live in native communities and speak only a native tongue. When an Indian moves to a city and learns Spanish or another language, he or she is no longer considered "indigenous", but "mestizo."

Government sources estimate that there are 40 million Indians in North and South America. Non-governmental sources put the figure at closer to 100 million. The discrepancy in numbers is attributed to the large amount of "mestizos," or racially mixed people, who consider themselves or can be considered Indian, yet are not recognized as such by their governments.

http://descendantofgods.tripod.com/id144.html


In Mexico an indio who puts on shoes, learns Spanish, and moves to a larger city becomes a non-Indian (he becomes mestizo or a Mexicano).

In Peru an Anishinabe woman who sets up a small shop becomes a chola. She is no longer an india.

In Guatemala a Cakchiquel who learns Spanish and moves to the city becomes a ladino. He is no longer indio.

In Peru, Bolivia, Mexico, and elsewhere, millions of people who were indios just a few years ago are now officially campesinos.

Bolivia has no more Anishinabegs, only peasants.

In Brazil an Indian who takes up farming away from a tribal village becomes a caboclo or perhaps a mestizo or simply a Brazilian peasant.

In the United States an Indian whose reservation is terminated
becomes officially a non-Indian.

In Canada an Indian whose group never signed a treaty or received a reservation is a metis.

In the United States many Chicanos of unmixed physical appearance are classified as whites with Spanish surnames.

In Mexico a man of complete Indian appearance who wears a suit, has a college education, and speaks Spanish has to be mestizo, since he could never be an indio.

Incidentally, is your friend from Mexico? If he isn't, he's not a Mexican, as the term refers to nationality and not race, though I'd expect that he'd know that. :thumbup1:

[the last donut of the night]

In Brazil an Indian who takes up farming away from a tribal village becomes a caboclo or perhaps a mestizo or simply a Brazilian peasant.

Actually, the word caboclo is more appropriate in this sense than mestizo. But the whole thing is true -- once a native leaves a tribal village he is either a caboclo, a camponês, or even a garimpeiro -- the media loves to overgeneralize these things.

[black magick hustla]

I think "communalism" as it is being expressed here today is an impossibility. I don't think an "organic democracy" will emerge. It was a historical condition of the past, and whether it was destroyed by settlers or not does not make it a future possibility beyond its implementation in a few tight knit communities.

[Robocommie]

I wouldn't agree with that assessment, actually. If we're to define "mestizos" as a person with any racial admixture, then effectively every individual outside of genetically isolated populations is a mestizo, which is also Stormfront's dirty little secret (you're only mixed if you mention it on there, as that supposedly indicates the level of your obsession with the fact :lol:).

Not a racial admixture, a mixture of Native Americans and Europeans, which represents the peculiar history of the United States as a colonial nation.



The majority of Mexicans are "mestizos," but they're predominantly Indian rather than mixed half-and-half (70% on average; far higher in some southern states and lower in northern states). As a result, I'd say that it's inaccurate to regard them as "mestizos" instead of Indians, just as it would be rather silly to regard African-Americans as "mulattoes" rather than blacks since they are on average 20% white. And since darker skin tones still tend to dominate in half-breeds (our president is certainly "black" despite being a mulatto), I would even incorporate them into the race that they'd be assumed to be.

The point my friend was mostly trying to make is that race in the "New World" is an incredibly transitive thing, and in fact your quotes even prove it to some extent, if an Indian changes his economic status and becomes a mestizo, then what does that tell us about race in American racial dynamics? Why obsess over "genetic purity" when race in the Americas is even more of a social construct than it is in Europe? That's largely my point.

Sadly, I can't argue this much more, because I just can't express it as eloquently as he can.



Incidentally, is your friend from Mexico? If he isn't, he's not a Mexican, as the term refers to nationality and not race, though I'd expect that he'd know that. :thumbup1:

I don't really see how it's your place to say that, there's millions of American born Latinos who consider themselves Mexican and have every right to. There's a widely recognized Mexican diaspora, man. I mean, I guess if you want to, you can call him Chicano, but I think it's pretty problematic to start labeling people and their racial identities based on national borders, that's colonization at work. I don't see how it's your place to tell him he's Mexican or not.

[blake 3:17]

I am starting to think there is no real one size fits all solution, its something that has to be dealt with by individual communities. Individual communities do have very practical differences and issues that can be worked through. The defintion of community needs to be fairly elastic. There are complicated legalities (trying to get your head around native issues in Canada is a pretty fierce crash course in constitutional law) and lots of points of division -- particular nations, relationships to nature and natural resource, Northern v Southern, particular band council politics, off reserve and on reserve, etc.



I was also looking at the term "nation" in the wrong way as well, linking it more to the term "state" thanks for that FreeFocus.

Even more so now, i think only a no state socialist solution can help address these issues. Do you guys feel the same? Or am i wrong?


Aboriginal peoples in Canada have demostrated abilities to function essentially stateless. At this point to declare aboriginal people as stateless will not further indigenous rights at all. Part of the treaty process is the recognition of a kind of feudal social relation, which is very screwed up, but does hold the Canadian state as the Crown's proxy responsible.

New forms of buy outs and abdication of treaty rules may benefit certain members of reserves but makes it harder on other folks.

[Agnapostate]

Not a racial admixture, a mixture of Native Americans and Europeans, which represents the peculiar history of the United States as a colonial nation.

Sociocultural mixture? There's effectively none in the U.S., a substantial amount in Mexico simply because of the ongoing nature of mestizaje, less in my maternal family's homeland of Guatemala, with "Ladinos" being far less prevalent than the "mestizos" of Mexico and various Mayan groups forming a substantive majority, etc. It's a varying issue.


The point my friend was mostly trying to make is that race in the "New World" is an incredibly transitive thing, and in fact your quotes even prove it to some extent, if an Indian changes his economic status and becomes a mestizo, then what does that tell us about race in American racial dynamics? Why obsess over "genetic purity" when race in the Americas is even more of a social construct than it is in Europe? That's largely my point.

There is profound racism that exists in America; while it's diminished substantially in the United States, Rigoberta Menchu can still be expelled from a ritzy Mexican hotel for being the wrong color and wearing "peasant" garb while they sell cheap knockoffs of Mayan products outside. When we obfuscate these issues by ignoring the difference between dirt-poor Chiapas Indians and the upper class whites of Mexico City by classifying them as "Mexican" and "Hispanic."


I don't really see how it's your place to say that, there's millions of American born Latinos who consider themselves Mexican and have every right to. There's a widely recognized Mexican diaspora, man. I mean, I guess if you want to, you can call him Chicano, but I think it's pretty problematic to start labeling people and their racial identities based on national borders, that's colonization at work. I don't see how it's your place to tell him he's Mexican or not.

They have the "right" to consider themselves Martians if they want to, but that certainly has no bearing on its accuracy. Mexico is a nation-state; "Mexican" is a nationalism, not a race or ethnic group. It's as inaccurate to claim that one is of "Mexican descent" as of "Canadian descent." Have you heard anyone say "I'm half Canadian"? It is worth noting, however, that the "American born Latinos" you refer to are usually prone to claims that "the Mexican race" (a nonexistent entity), are the "true Mexicans," with white, black, Arab, or Asian Mexicans being mere "Mexican nationals." My aunt was in MEChA; she is one of those people, and in my opinion inaccurately discounts her probable Tarahumara-Apachean heritage by hanging up Aztec calendars around her house and describing herself as "Mexican" and "Chicana."

[FreeFocus]

A good friend of mine is a Mexican, and a Pan-Americanist, sortof like how Che was. He pointed something out to me; Mexico is largely dominated by mestizos, who are defined as a racial mix of Europeans and First Nations people. In Canada they call them metis, of course.

He then points out to me, all the white Americans in this country who claim to have Indian ancestry at some point. Supposedly, I'm descended from Chief Blackhawk. My cousin's got an Indian great-grandfather. A friend of mine has an Indian grandfather. My sister in law, her father is part Indian and it shows in his face.

We, as Americans, in the United States, are mestizos, just like Mexico. The First Nations left a staggering legacy on this nation, that the history books in grammar school NEVER teach. And every year that goes by without trying to make amends for the past and set things right, by giving the First Nations people what they need to be autonomous and to prosper, we dishonor ourselves.

Plenty of people claim Native ancestry, but that doesn't mean everyone has it. As a settler state and a contrived nation (it didn't grow organically as others did), the US lacks the historical and cultural basis that others have (France, for example). People try to deal with this by claiming exotic ancestries, and being Native is seen as fairly exotic. White people often claim that their great-grandmothers were "Cherokee princesses." Funny, because there's no such thing.

I agree with your general point about the legacy, but no, Americans aren't really mestizos..

[ls]

Plenty of people claim Native ancestry, but that doesn't mean everyone has it. As a settler state and a contrived nation (it didn't grow organically as others did), the US lacks the historical and cultural basis that others have (France, for example). People try to deal with this by claiming exotic ancestries, and being Native is seen as fairly exotic. White people often claim that their great-grandmothers were "Cherokee princesses." Funny, because there's no such thing.

I agree with your general point about the legacy, but no, Americans aren't really mestizos..

What exactly makes you think "others" as in other nation-states grew organically? Please name even one and show us its history that you think has "grown organically"?

[FreeFocus]

What exactly makes you think "others" as in other nation-states grew organically? Please name even one and show us its history that you think has "grown organically"?

I didn't say "nation-state," I said "nation." Clearly no state arises organically, as it is an oppressive institution of class rule. Nations - groups of people sharing common language/culture and origins - can and do arise organically. Perhaps my usage of France as an example of having a history and cultural basis was confusing. To my knowledge, France has been united as a social entity for many centuries, and during the creation of the modern French nation-state, was not forcefully united as other European countries were (say, Germany, or Spain). In Spain you have oppressed groups that were ran-over during the creation of the state, like the Basques, who constitute a separate nation. Another example is the Ainu in Japan or the Ryukyuans.

[black magick hustla]

I didn't say "nation-state," I said "nation." Clearly no state arises organically, as it is an oppressive institution of class rule. Nations - groups of people sharing common language/culture and origins - can and do arise organically. Perhaps my usage of France as an example of having a history and cultural basis was confusing. To my knowledge, France has been united as a social entity for many centuries, and during the creation of the modern French nation-state, was not forcefully united as other European countries were (say, Germany, or Spain). In Spain you have oppressed groups that were ran-over during the creation of the state, like the Basques, who constitute a separate nation. Another example is the Ainu in Japan or the Ryukyuans.

The politicized nationalism is purely an invention of capitalists though. Whether it is made manifest in anti-colonialism or good ol boys american patriotism. Whether nations arose organically or not does not say anything about what we "ought" to do. Patirarchy arose organically in several communities too, as a phenomenon of the division of labor which was a fairly universal thing.

[ls]

I didn't say "nation-state," I said "nation." Clearly no state arises organically, as it is an oppressive institution of class rule. Nations - groups of people sharing common language/culture and origins - can and do arise organically. Perhaps my usage of France as an example of having a history and cultural basis was confusing. To my knowledge, France has been united as a social entity for many centuries, and during the creation of the modern French nation-state, was not forcefully united as other European countries were (say, Germany, or Spain). In Spain you have oppressed groups that were ran-over during the creation of the state, like the Basques, who constitute a separate nation. Another example is the Ainu in Japan or the Ryukyuans.

It's pretty evident you aren't too knowledgeable on what encompasses the Basque country, seeing as ironically it includes a part of France as well. Some Basque people certainly feel oppressed there, so no your example completely falls flat.

This is exactly what I mean, no 'nation' was made 'organically', once again, Japan is a completely bad example of this too, there are simply none of these things that you're saying that hold true.

[Agnapostate]

It's pretty evident you aren't too knowledgeable on what encompasses the Basque country, seeing as ironically it includes a part of France as well. Some Basque people certainly feel oppressed there, so no your example completely falls flat.

And France is another nation-state...

[Robocommie]

They have the "right" to consider themselves Martians if they want to, but that certainly has no bearing on its accuracy. Mexico is a nation-state; "Mexican" is a nationalism, not a race or ethnic group. It's as inaccurate to claim that one is of "Mexican descent" as of "Canadian descent." Have you heard anyone say "I'm half Canadian"? It is worth noting, however, that the "American born Latinos" you refer to are usually prone to claims that "the Mexican race" (a nonexistent entity), are the "true Mexicans," with white, black, Arab, or Asian Mexicans being mere "Mexican nationals." My aunt was in MEChA; she is one of those people, and in my opinion inaccurately discounts her probable Tarahumara-Apachean heritage by hanging up Aztec calendars around her house and describing herself as "Mexican" and "Chicana."

I don't really want to get into anymore of an argument on this issue. Suffice to say that while you are right, of course in that there is extensive plurality within Mexico, (Yaqui, Zapotec, Tarascan, African or European descended Mexicans, the list goes on and on) there's no way in Hell that I as a person of primarily German ethnicity (or should I say Bavarian?) am going to exercise colonial power over Latinos I encounter who self-identify as Mexican or Chicano by telling them that their identity is illegitimate. Fuck no.

[Robocommie]

I didn't say "nation-state," I said "nation." Clearly no state arises organically, as it is an oppressive institution of class rule. Nations - groups of people sharing common language/culture and origins - can and do arise organically. Perhaps my usage of France as an example of having a history and cultural basis was confusing. To my knowledge, France has been united as a social entity for many centuries, and during the creation of the modern French nation-state, was not forcefully united as other European countries were (say, Germany, or Spain). In Spain you have oppressed groups that were ran-over during the creation of the state, like the Basques, who constitute a separate nation. Another example is the Ainu in Japan or the Ryukyuans.

While I'm shooting myself in the foot a little in saying this, European cultural unity is as much a construct as American cultural unity. At the beginning of the 20th century, only about half of French citizens actually spoke French as their primary language, the rest spoke Breton, or Catalan, or Basque, or some other regional language. No nation forms more or less organically than any other, they form from the self-defined identities of their people. Nation-states usually reinforce this, France for example, goes to great lengths as they have for a great many years to promote the French language, which is also the same as suppressing regional dialects. This is also why colonial powers try so hard to repress tribal dialects.

[ls]

And France is another nation-state...

How exactly is that relevant?

[FreeFocus]

It's pretty evident you aren't too knowledgeable on what encompasses the Basque country, seeing as ironically it includes a part of France as well. Some Basque people certainly feel oppressed there, so no your example completely falls flat.

This is exactly what I mean, no 'nation' was made 'organically', once again, Japan is a completely bad example of this too, there are simply none of these things that you're saying that hold true.

Fair enough, I was under the impression that most Basques and the majority of Basque country was in Spain.

How is Japan a poor example? I'm using Japan and Spain as examples of "inorganic" nations, if you will. They were forcefully united to become a nation-state, and minorities and smaller nations were stripped of independence and culturally suppressed for this to happen. If no nation (please distinguish between nation-state, state and nation, that seems to be why you're confused with my argument) arises organically, what is culture or language (which have existed since humans have)? Creations of the bourgeoisie? I don't think so. They can be manipulated by the bourgeoisie under capitalism, but they aren't creations of the bourgeoisie.


While I'm shooting myself in the foot a little in saying this, European cultural unity is as much a construct as American cultural unity. At the beginning of the 20th century, only about half of French citizens actually spoke French as their primary language, the rest spoke Breton, or Catalan, or Basque, or some other regional language. No nation forms more or less organically than any other, they form from the self-defined identities of their people. Nation-states usually reinforce this, France for example, goes to great lengths as they have for a great many years to promote the French language, which is also the same as suppressing regional dialects. This is also why colonial powers try so hard to repress tribal dialects.

Thank you for the correction on France.

[Robocommie]

Thank you for the correction on France.

Certainly, it was something I only very recently learned myself, I was quite surprised by it.

[ls]

They were forcefully united to become a nation-state, and minorities and smaller nations were stripped of independence and culturally suppressed for this to happen. .. (please distinguish between nation-state, state and nation, that seems to be why you're confused with my argument)

The first difference we have is that I think states can be used by the workers for the purpose of imposing a DOTP (let's get that straight). Our second difference is in seeing nationalism as potentially progressive. I understand your argument completely now, I thought you were using Japan and France to show organic nations as opposed to nation-states. They show nationalism of any kind falls flat on its face, you can look to the supposed "success" of the ETA in both France and in Spain if you want proof there. For Japan, its clear that 'oppressed national liberation' has brought little success there


If no nation arises organically, what is culture or language (which have existed since humans have)? Creations of the bourgeoisie? I don't think so. They can be manipulated by the bourgeoisie under capitalism, but they aren't creations of the bourgeoisie.

You tell me what it is..

Do the eastern Ukrainians not speak Russian? Do Kurds in modern day south-eastern Turkey not understand Turkish widely? Do they share just as much of a connection with other Ozghur Turkic and Anatolian peoples culturally as well as linguistically in the modern day as well as largely, unfortunately enforced, by the Ottoman Empire?

The answer to all these questions is yes. The only reason we should have for working to preserve minority languages or "national" borders , is for purely administrative purposes of efficiency (ie the all-Ukrainian and all-Russian congresses of Soviets). Other than that, we should completely erode them come the time to build a new socialist state/anarchist territory and ultimately, naturally let them mix them into the bigger picture; this would be some sort of non-assimilationist integrationism where people take all of the non-reactionary remnants of the old bourgeois infested 'national cultures' around them, then basically be whatever they want to be with no expectations whatsoever.

[Ligeia]

In Mexico an indio who puts on shoes, learns Spanish, and moves to a larger city becomes a non-Indian (he becomes mestizo or a Mexicano).

In Peru an Anishinabe woman who sets up a small shop becomes a chola. She is no longer an india.

In Guatemala a Cakchiquel who learns Spanish and moves to the city becomes a ladino. He is no longer indio.

In Peru, Bolivia, Mexico, and elsewhere, millions of people who were indios just a few years ago are now officially campesinos.

Bolivia has no more Anishinabegs, only peasants.

In Brazil an Indian who takes up farming away from a tribal village becomes a caboclo or perhaps a mestizo or simply a Brazilian peasant.

In the United States an Indian whose reservation is terminated
becomes officially a non-Indian.

In Canada an Indian whose group never signed a treaty or received a reservation is a metis.

In the United States many Chicanos of unmixed physical appearance are classified as whites with Spanish surnames.

In Mexico a man of complete Indian appearance who wears a suit, has a college education, and speaks Spanish has to be mestizo, since he could never be an indio.
This reminds me of what my mother told me once: Studiyng in the University (Mexico), there was a survey which asked what race you considered yourself to be. My mother answered "india" and the interviewer said she was the first to acknowledge/answer this.

[Plagueround]

I'm a ''Stalinist''?Of course I am!This is the only way communism can be established and survive.''Liberal social republics'' idea is a fable.
Pure ''natives'' are long extinct....giving their descendants territory that once belonged to their ancestors would just be a social justice for justice sake,nothing more.Of course,if they want to live like primitive savages.Witch I doubt...but still,they would have a choice.
But firstly they would have to accept Communist system.Spreading it to every corner of the world should be the main and the most important issue of every revolutionary leftist.More important than some descendants of savages personal issues.

Congratulations on making it to 5 posts before getting banned you stupid motherfucker. And people wonder why indigenous people tend to reject what the left has to offer.

[ls]

And people wonder why indigenous people tend to reject what the left has to offer.

Well, I think it is about "the left" emanating from reservations when it comes to communism in that area in the US, Canada and Australia. Quite simply, you are right when you imply that a lot of the left has quite a bit of ignorance and chauvinism about conditions on reservations (a lot of the time unintentionally, unlike that idiot who got banned I might add). I think AIM was perhaps a step in the right direction, but it seems to have died out, now, American/Canadian/NZ/Aussie communists should aim to build a unified movement off and on the reservations demanding better rights for native comrades housed on reservations.

[bcbm]

Well, I think it is about "the left" emanating from reservations when it comes to communism in that area in the US, Canada and Australia. Quite simply, you are right when you imply that a lot of the left has quite a bit of ignorance and chauvinism about conditions on reservations (a lot of the time unintentionally, unlike that idiot who got banned I might add). I think AIM was perhaps a step in the right direction, but it seems to have died out, now, American/Canadian/NZ/Aussie communists should aim to build a unified movement off and on the reservations demanding better rights for native comrades housed on reservations.

it would probably be worth examining in greater detail some of the solidarity that has developed, as with anarchists and indigenous groups in vancouver, as well as in arizona.