Anarchy Bang: Introducing Episode 32 - Indigenous Anarchism

  • Posted on: 9 August 2019
  • By: anarchybang

From Anarchy Bang

Indigenous Anarchism can be defined in several ways. These different approaches to land, people, and language will be discussed this week. We'll try to provide the framing to the different authors, texts, and actions that have introduced these discussions. This is all in preparation for the convergence of Indigenous Anarchists in Flagstaff AZ ( and what we hope to accomplish there and beyond. Should IA be considered a movement, a people, a fad, or a way of life? Is it a way to cut through the bullshit jargon of this world and just let people be?

Join in the conversation!

Sunday at noon (PST or -7 UTC) at
Email questions ahead if you like
The call in number is (646) 787-8464


this picture...
who put this adorable, crazy cute, saccharine awesomeness on my beloved anews?!

Yep, we need more of that stuff, less riot porn.


A) european phrase that points to far older understandings of power and its trappings

B) leftist bullshit


"Jerks can be defined in several ways..."

didn't "IA" stand for "insurrectionary anarchy/ism"?


Is this the event were White Euro settlers can't come except maybe if they're Hispanic White Euro settlers?

in some places the narrative is that all natives or aboriginals were wiped out, only remnants of them being in the DNA. that all people are mixed and therefore equalized, that they all share one culture made up of a fusion between the conquerors and the conquered. in these contexts racism and coloniality is not as simple to delineate in terms of indigenous vs settlers.
BUT in some places it still is! and i stand in solidarity with all of them!

the indigenous anarchist convergence will - hopefully - convince people who come from cultures that were repressed by european invaders to be proud of what was achieved by their peoples before the era of conquest. throughout much of the world, there was no poverty. that doesn't mean there was no hardship. there was very little crime. that is not to say there were no conflicts. no matter what problems many indigenous peoples experienced, they experienced them as a people, and they resolved these issues as a people. it is my hope that indigenous peoples will show the way back to prosperity and living lives which value inner growth and harmony with lands where they dwell that is beyond the reach of simple-minded, spoiled, privileged white "anarchists" who are okay with living under fascism here in the u.s.a. (ever since president kennedy was knocked off for not going along with the more rabidly fascist's schemes), so long as it is black, indigenous, chicano, and asian people being repressed, and their own lives of privilege and ease are not affected.

there is no such thing as an anarcho-fascist, and any american "anarchist" who is not actively attempting to tear down the u.s.a. is cowardly and living under self-justified delusions. the above comment is a perfect example of how far "anarchists" in the west will go to cut off any discussion of putting an end to the systems which create privileges, and learning from people with different cultural values.

privileges - btw - are given to slaves for being compliant, and kissing the right asses.

would encourage further discussion on Indigenous egoism, and Natives who exist outside of the Red-centric anarchy, nihilists, Anti-Civ, etc

"red-centric" as in leftist?

red-centric as in communist/collectivist social anarchy etc

it's just a side of the bed to wake up on anon ;)

wen u giff other anons winky faces it makes me jealous, but my response is not to chastise you, but to send you a winky face as well ; )

anon jealous of anon?! perish the thought. anon is the best anarchist writer ever. it is known!

i came to understand anarchy by reading about the comanche (numinu) people, and their society's structure. i've never needed to read about european and post-colonial nation's anarchism to be able to envision what an anarchistic society looks like, and how it functions. although i do like some of what i found when i read anarchist literature, for the most part, they are too euro-centric in the values they are willing to fight and die for.

for example, i would not like to see mining companies run as worker's co-operatives. i would rather see clean streams and verdant life, with no mining at all.

there is a serious rift in the way most indigenous peoples interacted with the world around them, and the way the euro-centirc - and other civilized people's - consume everything around them, then move on to another place, leaving behind barren, dead lands and poisoned water. i don't think there is much of value in the anarchist "cannon' of sacred texts written by dead white guys at a time when the superiority of western civilization was accepted as a scientific fact, and all other peoples were "primitives" and "savages."

you say native vs anarchist like they're two distinct groups, because one does something you like (leaving things natural) and the other does something you don't like (consuming everything), when neither of those activities is distinct to either arbitrary group you label.

someone you spent time with after you got out of prison, so stop frontin'

Hey dude, no one can return to pre-industrial conditions, maybe in some freezing or burning wilderness, some pockets of forest, buffalo on the prairie isn't going to happen. Sooo, time to move on, the comanche values can never be conquered, terrain is not the sole requirement for a culture, sacred land, if viewed at spiritually, is actually INSIDE the soul of a people, it carries the same significance without actually standing on that piece of land.

Add new comment