Log in

View Full Version : Anarchy on Tristan Da Cunha



Forward Union
14th April 2007, 08:55
I found this on Ian Bones personal website and just wondered what people here thought.


http://www.btinternet.com/~sa_sa/tristan_da_cunha/images/tristan_da_cunha.png

In 1937, as part of a Norwegian scientific expedition, PETER MUNCH visited Tristan Da Cunha. He was surprised to discover that the form of social organisation on the island was ANARCHY… And had been for over 100 years.

There was no government, police, money or headman/woman. Munch wrote, ‘The principles of freedom and anarchy were firmly established in the Tristan community as a social order based on the voluntary consensus of free men and women. In such a community not only is authority, control or any kind of formal or informal government considered unnecessary and undesirable but is felt to be a menace and a threat to individual rights.’

The inhabitants of Tristan were not a self-selected commune who had gone there to establish utopia. They were of all races and survivors of shipwrecks or ex-whalers who had washed up there over 100 years. That anarchy became their natural form of social organisation and persisted against all efforts of the British government to undermine it is all the more remarkable.

Andrea Repetto, an Italian who had been shipwrecked on Tristan in 1892, was one of the few Tristans who could read or write. Seizing there chance the British government addressed all communications to Andrea Repetto, ‘Head Man ‘or occasionally ‘governor’. For twenty years they never received any reply ’til the mail was discovered unopened. Repetto explained that as there was no head man or governor on the island so no one felt able to open the mail!

In astonishment a government spokesman wrote in 1903, ‘There is an extraordinary state of affairs in this civilised century that there is no form of authority and the Tristans are curiously averse to any individual being considered to have more influence than the rest.’

Munch reported there had NEVER been any crime and no fist fight in living memory.

The Tristanians were not anarchists who’d read their Bakunin - they found anarchy to be the natural form of social organisation though they would never have used the word themselves. Yet the Tristanians have proved of remarkably little interest to anarchists - maybe because we are too used to failures to recognise success!

redcannon
14th April 2007, 09:05
can you give us a link for it? I looked at wikipedia and some other sites. they all say it was a garrison and under british rule. None of them say a word about anarchy (not like they would anyway)

apathy maybe
14th April 2007, 12:53
My dad's always wanted to visit. Anyway, Wikipeida! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_Da_Cunha

redcannon: Even if they were an anarchy, as you say, it wouldn't exactly be publicised.

I think this last line:
"Yet the Tristanians have proved of remarkably little interest to anarchists - maybe because we are too used to failures to recognise success!" is interesting. Is it that, or it simply because nobody has heard of this little island?


And here is Ian Bone's website: http://ianbone.wordpress.com/

Sir_No_Sir
14th April 2007, 17:15
While I can't find any mention of anarchy (besides Ian Bone's site), I don't see any mention of government. (before 1937)

Circle A
14th April 2007, 22:41
Originally posted by Love [email protected] 14, 2007 07:55 am
I found this on Ian Bones personal website and just wondered what people here thought.


No fistfights in memory, and no TV until just 2001!?
Sounds like an amazing place.

I once saw an documentary on Tristan Da Cunha. The people there were leery of outsiders, understandably so as it is so isolated from the rest of the world.

The functioning Anarchy Tristans enjoy must have been similiar to what some Polynesians had going on in the isolated little islands of the South Pacific.

Raúl Duke
15th April 2007, 00:09
No fistfights in memory, and no TV until just 2001!?
Sounds like an amazing place.


Sounds like a place to hide in, escape to, and live in isolation.
Only good if being persecuted or if zombies are taking over the world.

I suppose the reason why much anarchists are not interested in Tristan da Cunha is because it's anarchy was not caused by an anarchist movement or revolution in a modern capitalist area. These examples seem to be of most importance to anarchists, after all many know about the Spanish Revolution than the fabled Pirate Utopia Libertaria (did that really exist???; would like to know.)

Forward Union
16th April 2007, 15:19
Well the reason you don't find the word "anarchism" attsched to the islands history is made clear in the article itself;

"The Tristanians were not anarchists who’d read their Bakunin - they found anarchy to be the natural form of social organisation though they would never have used the word themselves. "

Janus
17th April 2007, 02:11
Many different cultures have a history of some form of primitive communist development system, it's quite interesting that a shipwreck colony would develop such a cooperative system as this.

Forward Union
18th April 2007, 13:31
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:11 am
Many different cultures have a history of some form of primitive communist development system, it's quite interesting that a shipwreck colony would develop such a cooperative system as this.
Well, yes, it seems to have more sociological significance than political, because they didn't have the same society as the rest of the world, with a capitalist class owning the means of production from the beginning etc.

YSR
18th April 2007, 21:36
Anarchist anthropology anyone?

The fact is that plenty of societies function in similar manners to this, we just don't hear or talk about them.

Oh, and if we do, the Marxists insultingly call them "primitive communism".

Luís Henrique
19th April 2007, 01:24
Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 18, 2007 08:36 pm
Marxists insultingly call them "primitive communism".

Andrea Repetto, an Italian who had been shipwrecked on Tristan in 1892, was one of the few Tristans who could read or write.

I would call a society in which illiteracy is the rule primitive, would you not?

Luís Henrique

Fight4freedom
19th April 2007, 19:56
I find that quite interesting, admittedly I had never heard of the place before now. Thank you for sharing this. :) It will be of some use as a case study in the future, or to rebuke people's claims that anarchy simply cannot function.

The Grey Blur
19th April 2007, 20:25
Out of curiousity why is this referred to as "anarchy" and not just plain communism?


Oh, and if we do, the Marxists insultingly call them "primitive communism".
Do we really? Or do you just enjoy painting a stereotype of Marxists as elitists; this wouldn't be the first time.

That said, "primitive communism" is not an insult, it's simply a description of an egalitarian society, pre-industrialisation. Only an oversensitive idiot, lacking even the most basic grasp of Marxism, would consider it an "insult".

And I found this article interesting. Good find LU.

redcannon
20th April 2007, 00:04
Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 14, 2007 03:53 am


redcannon: Even if they were an anarchy, as you say, it wouldn't exactly be publicised.




i know, that's what i was saying in the parenthesis. thanks for the link