Inspired by artists, academics and activist colleagues who have rolled their eyes at the spiritual beliefs of their Indigenous counterparts as well as protested the inclusion of prayer and ceremony into political, academic and artistic activities, I have decided to share my thinking on some fundamental differences in values and knowledge ways that impede relationship-making across our communities.
While I can't generalize about what Indigenous or other racialized peoples mean by the words "decolonization", anti-racist or "anti-colonial", I can certainly observe how SOME philosophies and action strategies employed in leftist movements relegate anti-colonial and anti-racist struggles to the periphery.
Furthermore, concepts of "decolonization", as they are talked about in many Indigenous and other racialized communities, are not always compatible with what are essentially Eurocentric philosophies and actions strategies.
The following are issues for all activists to keep in mind when working to build relationships.
At its heart, socialist-, Marxist-, and anarchist-informed activism centralizes the class struggle and workers rights. These are considered the core of "the struggle" all other struggles get "included" into that framework. This has required people from a variety of social locations (women, people of colour, differently-abled people, Indigenous folks, etc.) to function within a worldview that is not always intrinsic to or based in their cultural identities, community values and historical or personal experiences -- even when they are resisting colonization.
Nor does this framework always address the aspirations of racialized communities, which in the case of Indigenous peoples involves recovering a specific Earth-informed, spiritually-infused culture and worldview. In this sense, leftist philosophies are like a one-size-fits-all dress that only a very small minority feel comfortable wearing. This doesn't mean that such frameworks can't be useful but they are not our historic starting place and that matters.
Leftist philosophies are theoretical frameworks that were initially developed BY MEN in Europe. European-descended women and racialized peoples from the rest of the world took up that central philosophy, critiqued and developed it. While we honour the works of many who have added to the body of theoretical work, we still need to understand that these theories basically started with a patriarchal, Eurocentric, colonial-minded framework. That framework informed everything that came after. Much like in the pages of a colouring book, you can colour outside the lines, select unconventional colours, draw your own illustrations elsewhere on the page, etc., but the book's drawings dominate and, to a great extent, define whatever appears at the end.
Advertising
Struggles of Indigenous and other racialized people (as well as those from other social locations) become adjectives or appendices in a feminist, anti-racist, green, anti-colonial class struggle that (sometimes) includes differently abled people. While we can acknowledge that there are various approaches to "inclusion" (and some approaches work better than others) we will never get away from the necessity of having to be "included". We will always be the recipients of accommodations or adjustments to theory and practice. (Even though indigenous and other racialized peoples together comprise the majority of the world's population.)
Marxism, socialism and anarchy do not address relationality, that is the inter-relatedness and inter-connectedness of all life -- past, present and future. Such theories still operate under the assumption that we two-leggeds are separate, differentiated individuals. As a species we are still considered to be superior to rather than inherently part of the other life forms on this planet and beyond. While lefties (and others) are increasingly shifting towards understanding that the "environment" is part of our bodies, that we cannot harm another without harming ourselves (based, in part, on emerging scientific knowledge), new analyses are still being tacked onto or integrated with or assimilated into larger leftist frameworks. Relationality is inadequately understood and still seen as an appendix to existing theory, rather than a legitimate and viable worldview in and of itself.
Some leftist philosophies are antagonistic to, uncomfortable with, or otherwise look down on Indigenous cultural beliefs and practices. Many activists who attempt to respect those cultures would still like to see spirituality as separate from political work; something to be done "over there" rather than to be infused into or inform our work. They often generalize about their negative and oppressive experiences with colonial/imperial/institutionalized religions and apply them to belief systems that are Earth-informed and relationship-centred. This rationalizes their desire to compartmentalize spirituality and deny how it infuses and informs Indigeneity.
Decolonization is often seen as a process in which only Indigenous and racialized people need to engage. Many lefties do not understand the need to shift their frameworks, change their mindsets and alter their actions. They do not always see that we are all in this together, impacting each other in a web of life processes that inter-relate. Remarkably some lefties see decolonization as a process whereby Indigenous and racialized groups simply shed one Eurocentric framework only to adopt another. Consequently, lefties can also become "missionaries", encouraging or requiring assimilation into their own worldviews.
Indigenous and other racialized peoples have their own cultural and/or spiritual and/or wisdom traditions in which two leggeds are neither "centralized" nor "included" but are, instead, interwoven into a complex set of relationships with the Earth and all the life it supports, past, present and future. These frameworks of relationality inherently provide a critique of both capitalist and left-wing ideologies. If the aim of decolonization is to rid ourselves of colonial mindsets why not centralize our own wisdom traditions and use class analyses or other frameworks if and when they enable us to think and act in ways that support our communities (including Mother Earth, Our Relations and the Great Spirit)?
Relational frameworks served Indigenous and other racialized peoples for millennia before colonization. Remarkably, these ideologies and life ways are still alive and evolving, despite brutal colonizing efforts. Idealizing pre-colonial cultures and assuming that life was problem free before the coming of Europeans is neither true nor helpful. However, pre-colonial knowledge and values were and are perfectly viable and sustainable in these times. In fact, they might be crucial to getting the human species out of the mess we now find ourselves in on Mother Earth. Besides, don't we all need to connect with who we are and where we come from before we can successfully move forward?
Taking on someone else's ideology is like wearing someone else's eyeglasses. If they aren't made for your specific vision problems they can do harm. As indigenous and racialized peoples our eyes have been damaged, our worldviews stolen from us through the process of colonization. But in our case, the glasses we choose can either promote our healing or they can leave us dependant on lenses crafted by others.
That isn't to say that glasses can't ever be useful. No one philosophy or worldview is going to enable us to see everything that needs seeing or explain everything that needs explaining in our lives. One single worldview cannot inform ALL of our strategies for change. It might be necessary to wear bi or tri-focals from time to time and use the part of the lenses that provide us with the clearest view of what we want to see. But of course, the best of all options is to heal our eyes so we can see clearly for ourselves.
Zainab Amadahy is a mother, writer and activist. Her publications include the novel Moons of Palmares (1998, Sister Vision Press) as well as an essay in the anthology Strong Women's Stories: Native Vision & Community Activism, (Lawrence & Anderson, 2004, Sumach Press). Most recently Amadahy has contributed to In Breach of the Colonial Contract (Arlo Kemp, Ed. 2008) by co-authoring "Indigenous Peoples and Black People in Canada: Settlers or Allies?"
Doesn't a commitment to "relationality" mean being open to the possibility (or better, reality) that class, race and indigeneity aren't just distinct but partly internal to each other? Do you really want to be the mere opposite of some Marxist stereotype? It's not the 1980s any more and we don't have time to waste on false choices or fighting the people who should be our allies while our real enemies are plundering and burning the earth.
Thank you so much for this, Zainab.
Consider the large and politically active core within tribal and indigenous communities that are mostly right-wing neo-conservatives that vote for going to war, elect Republican leadership, even if it collides with tribal sovereignty on land and energy policy(s) and are pro-capitalists without government intrusions. As native people, our collective consumerism, say at Wal-Mart, and our diets, do us more harm than what is done to our "eye's".
I'm really pleased to have read this piece, and I hope to reflect on it again soon.
I have not read widely on the points you raise, but I do believe that there are bonds between Indigenous modes of thinking and anarchist, socialist and communist currents.
In his comprehesive work on anarchism, for example, Peter Marshall writes that roots of the tradition can be traced back to Taoism and Buddhism. So anarchism did not emerge entirely by men in Europe. It's principles are regarded by many as inate tendencies of humanity.
And regarding Marxism, I think the recent dialectic thinking of David Harvey suggests that Marxists can be intimately aware of their bonds with nature. My readings of Marx suggest that Marx himself was aware of these bonds, and the works of John Bellamy Foster provide a solid foundation for this view. In fact, I believe that Marxian theory is one of the best existing models that for thinking "relationality." In other words, I believe that, with some effort, the "fundamental differences" that you seek to establish may not be so fundamental after all.
You are entirely right to point out these tensions, but there are also strong commonalities that are likely worth exploring. And if anarchist and Marxist eyes are indeed blind to the points you raise, as your article suggests, then perhaps your next piece can address how we can learn from Indigenous modes of thinking in order to open our eyes?
m_brett,
It is unfortunetly a common misconception that anarchism has any ties to such religions as Taoism or Buddhism. In fact, anarchism rose primarly from the writings of Peter Kropotkin and Mikhal Bauknin (both aristorcatic slavic Russians) and was first taken up by the working classes and peasentry of western Asia (AKA Russia to Spain).
The anarchist(-communist) tradition is over a 150 years old aspriration of the international working class, there is no need to confuse matters by trying to tie it to other political tendencies or religions.
I would reccomend the book "Black Flame:the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism" for a great history of the anarchist movement internationally.
http://black-flame-anarchism.blogspot.com/
Normal 0 false false false EN-CA X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
This raises vital issues concerning inclusivity, eurocentrism and colonialism - all things I agree we must foreground in our struggles against exploitation and oppression. However, I am afraid that it is also based on a incomplete and problematic understanding of Marxist/socialist and anarchist analyses. In the former, it is impossible to separate out "race, gender, physical ability..." from capitalist social relations. Once the moment of capital accumulation is made distinct from the political or communal, these social locations become fundamental to capitalist exploitation.
This is not to say that eurocentrism and a lack of regard for the non-human natural world have not been, and are not present, in "leftist philosophy". But the account above completely ignores what is undeniably a very large, and longstanding, effort and corresponding literature aimed at decolonizing the study of political economy. Similarly, what of all the Marxist geographers and ecologists demonstrating the destructive nature of capitalism on our natural environment - highlighting the exact point raised above- capitalism's necessary imperative to separate humans from their natural world - ensuring the continued exploitation of both.
Perhaps most troubling for me, is the erasure of decades (more than a century now) of non-European Marxists and anarchists struggle all over the globe. Racialized peoples all over the world have long seen the intersectionality of their race with capitalist accumulation. How can we tell the anti-apartheid struggle, the Black Panther movement, leftist resistance all over Latin America and post-independent Africa (and now North Africa) that the framework they chose didn't adequately "address their aspirations"? Sorry C.L.R. James, your life's work surrounding eurocentrism, racism and class struggle was all for naught; Arab Spring, you need to start over.
The idea that "racialized peoples from the rest of the world took up that central philosophy, critiqued and developed it" seems insulting to me in the suggestion that this is all they did - in fact, they lived, breathed, and made their own this fierce resistance - based on sophisticated analysis and their lived experience - as non-white, non-capital owning social beings.
I completely agree that we need to confront eurocentrism, patriarchy, colonialism, racism and all forms of oppression - always. But to suggest that because Marx and Bakunin were white men, Marxism and Anarchism are inherently patriarchal and eurocentric, is insulting to all ‘non-white-non-men’ Marxists and Anarchists who have come to the intellectual position that capitalist social relations are fundamentally exploitative. Those of us engaged in the struggle against oppression in all its forms must recognize that there are multiple sites of resistance and ways of exercising this resistance. We may not completely agree about what those are, and exactly what it will look like when we get there, but if we do not find common ground and practice the tolerance we preach, will never know.
Thanks for all the comments.
Re Gino's "Doesn't a commitment to "relationality" mean being open to the possibility (or better, reality) that class, race and indigeneity aren't just distinct but partly internal to each other?" I find your remarks particularly insightful and tried to advocate for this when I wrote about the need for bi and trifocals. Maybe you say it better (if I understand you correctly).
Re: JVW's "Perhaps most troubling for me, is the erasure of decades (more than a century now) of non-European Marxists and anarchists struggle all over the globe." I reiterate that I honour the theorizing & work of racialized activists who have informed further theorizing & actions. However, racism and colonialism still exist in our movements & one of the ways this manifests is through the "inclusion", "appendixing" or context-specific "showcasing" of the work of racialized activists & theorists - or at least those who come closest to agreeing with the current thinking that dominates in the left.
As someone who took part in the Black Panther movement as a high schooler, worked with African National Congress reps in Canada during the 80's to co-found of the UofT Diversment Committee (which aimed to pressure the university to divest itself of its holdings in companies & banks that dealt with apartheid South Africa), is a former Coordinator of the Toronto Committee for the Liberation of Southern Africa AND is a former activist with Canadians Concerned about South Africa, I have valid thoughts to share coming out of those and other experiences. I am the they you refer to in "...seems insulting to me in the suggestion that this is all they did". I will not take responsibility if you find my analysis insulting. So far I have found a great receptiveness to the issues I raise on the part of Indigenous & other racialized activists, my main audience for this piece. I may not have the perfect analysis (who does?) but I have certainly touched people and contributed to identifying and fleshing out a concern shared by many. Consequently, I am going to continue to respectfully dialogue with those who are interested in continuing the conversation. My hope is that we will arrive at a place where we can respectfully co-exist with our stories.
As an indigenous sovreignty and Palestinian activist I have a very fresh memory, of only 5-6 years ago, our groups being frozen out of the anti-war movement. And a memory only weeks old of hearing about discussions where people within the left complained and took issue with opening ceremony and hand drumming at events featuring Indigenous speakers. This is an issue that begs honest & honourable discussion and action. I'm proud to be playing a constructive role in that regard.
Re: Zelbequahi's "Consider the large and politically active core within tribal and indigenous communities ..." You raise a very valid point. Wadoh. I appreciate that issues are more complex than my article suggests. Colonial thinking is not a matter of bloodlines or skincolour.
For me, our actions start with our thinking. And if we continue in colonial ways of thinking, injustice and more suffering will be the outcome. Changing our actions begins with changing our mindsets. At the same time, I am wary of idealizing pre-colonial life-ways. I simply wish to share that, in my expeirence, centralizing precolonial Indigenous worldviews has enabled thinking and action strategies that transcend those I have experienced in leftist, Eurocentric informed contexts.
Re: Gino's "It's not the 1980s any more and we don't have time to waste on false choices or fighting the people who should be our allies while our real enemies are plundering and burning the earth." I am not willing to work with allies who disrespect me. In Latin American movements during the 80's I recall Indigenous women, some in the guerilla movements, discussing appeals made by male and non-Indigenous allies to remain silent about their specific issues in favour of the goal of seizing state power. It didnt work for them then and I don't see why it would work better now. My expectations of my allies are as high as my expectations of myself. I wouldn't ask anyone to put their struggles on the back burner in trade for prioritizing mine. Our struggles are inter-related and the process of struggle itself needs to reflect that to enjoy success.
Thank you to those who contributed my education on anarchism.
Re: Re: JVW's comments:
"to suggest that because Marx and Bakunin were white men, Marxism and Anarchism are inherently patriarchal and eurocentric, is insulting to all ‘non-white-non-men’ Marxists and Anarchists who have come to the intellectual position that capitalist social relations are fundamentally exploitative."
Why would you assume that I am not as fiercly ant-capitalist as a Marxist or an anarchist? I don't have to identify as either to agree that capitalist social relations are inherently exploitative. My point is that I (and many others) don't wish to be dismissed, appendicized or marginalized because our activism is informed by a worldview that originates elsewhere and doesn't always intersect with or find common ground with philosophies dominant in the left. Furthermore, if you are arguing that the writings of Marx & Bakunin were NOT Eurocentric and patriarchal and/or that their social locations did not inform their theorizing, then I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one.
"Our struggles are inter-related and the process of struggle itself needs to reflect that to enjoy success." I am sure that we have much more in common than not. I also couldn't agree more that racism and colonialism still exist in our movements, and that simply 'adding-on' or appendixing the work of racialized (or anyone outside of the hegemonic power structure) theorists/activists is indeed reflective of this. When I stated that "that we need to confront eurocentrism, patriarchy, colonialism, racism and all forms of oppression - always" I was not limiting this to outside the movement. My point was that Marxism and Anarchism, while originating in a particular place and time in history, are not characteristic of any particular worldview, as is demonstrated by struggle the world over. They are always anti-capitalist and emancipatory in thier aims, but always respond to particularized social conditions. Insofar as that social condition is capitalism, and Marxism offers a specific critique of capitalist accumulation, and both are fundamentally anti-capitalist, then I suppose it could be said that they offer a worldview. But that worldview is a pretty big tent.
"Furthermore, if you are arguing that the writings of Marx & Bakunin were NOT Eurocentric and patriarchal and/or that their social locations did not inform their theorizing, then I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one." Respectively, nothing I said suggested this. Even more to the point is a continuation of both throughout scholarship, and and as you so rightly point out, practice. But this does not negate the value of Marxist and Anarchist shcolarship and struggle that orginates in the subaltern. Or, for that matter, which does not, but which challenges eurocentrism and colonialism from within.
"While we honour the works of many who have added to the body of theoretical work, we still need to understand that these theories basically started with a patriarchal, Eurocentric, colonial-minded framework." With all due respect, and I really do mean this, you haven't explained how this means that anarchism and marxism are fundamentally "patriarchal, Eurocentric, colonial-minded". Again, I am not saying that they have and are not ever embraced by those practising any or all of these forms of oppression, but I fail to see how they are themselves expressions of these oppressions, rather than expressions of the individuals and thier social location (usually, but not always, of privilege).
In response to your question: "Why would you assume that I am not as fiercly ant-capitalist as a Marxist or an anarchist?" I am not making such an assumption. My point was only that both theories are fundamentally anti-capitalist. For all that each do and do not have in common, this is at thier core, and my point was that many non-white people have found the marxist critique of capitalist social relations pretty useful. I only scratched the surface with those I referenced above.
I am glad that you are "going to continue to respectfully dialogue with those who are interested in continuing the conversation." I think this dialogue and introspection is essential for the movement's shared goals.
Gino: if you can't see the colonial mindset embedded in your comment then I'm thinking you never will. For a start, you insist on reducing the concept of relatinality to its meaning to you. Divorced from its embededness in indigenous philosophy which imbue in it a whole lot of other meanings. And as for "we don't have time to waste on false choices or fighting the people who should be our allies" then good on you. Good luck on being listened to by those with more power than you when you demonstrate no capacity for it yourself. A movement that aims to address power and (presumably) privilege wishes to remain ignorant of its power and privilege. Not a good start.
Zeibequahi: I'm not American, but I am a Maori woman of Aotearoa and your critique saddens me enormously. What I see in your comment is a failure to locate the indigenous peoples you speak of within colonial, white-supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist ideologies and therefore appear blind as to how they permeate everyone's lives. They/we do not exist outside of the created nations we find ourselves in. And yet others of us still uphold, seek to practice, the knowledge of our ancestors.
To Zainab I love what you wrote here. And with humility. It saddens me even further that I see this same critique expressed in different ways (albeit particularly articulately in your case) and yet still not really heard. It doesn't bode well for the present movement I think. In my country, where similar support movements are underway, Maori are in attendance, but tentatively, carefully. History has been a good teacher in that respect. One of our wahine toa has written about it here. I have written about it, though nowhere near as well, also. While historically many Maori have engaged Marxist theory and perhaps even practice, I have never seen it placed at the centre, above kaupapa Maori theory. And anarchism is completely anti-thetical to my people's form of government, from my understanding. Though I may not understand anarchism well enough. Both theories carry the seeds of their origin, regardless of how it they are re-theorised. Nga mihi mahana ki a koe (warm greetings to you) Zainab.