This essay is taken from Black and Green Review no 3.
Fracking, tar sands, sour
gas, liquefied natural gas (LNG) conversion stations and pipelines; in all
cases, it would appear that our native friends up north have been trail blazing
persistent resistance to the new wave of resource extraction and distribution.
As they seem to typify it, it’s just the new face of colonization, but an old
enemy.
I had the pleasure of speaking to non-native green
anarchists from British Columbia who have been involved with and supporting
these encampments and have been able to give us some more details about the
encampments, the challenges that they expose for anarchists and as non-natives,
the contexts of decolonization and effective forms of resistance, and, most
importantly, the role of community and subsistence.
This brings out a lot of vital questions and I greatly
anticipate the furthering of this discussion and hearing more native voices on
the matter (hopefully in BAGR no 4).
- Kevin Tucker
Can you give me an overview of some of the native
energy extraction and distribution struggles going on up there?
The area we are talking about
is the northwestern portion of so called British Columbia. It is home to many
different indigenous nations (Gitxsan, Tsimshian, Wet'suwet'en to name a few)
who have been living here for thousands of years before the colonial forces
arrived. Most of these territories are "un-ceded" which means the
people have never surrendered or signed over their lands to the invaders. There
are no treaties here. Part of the ongoing process of colonization in Canada has
been the settler state institution of the 1876 Indian Act and with it, the Band
Council system. This system was and continues to be used to subvert hereditary
systems of governance, ones that existed prior to and in opposition in value to
capitalist colonial society. Despite this, hereditary systems and cultures are
still largely practised outside of the constraints imposed by the colonial
government.
This region has a long history of
resistance to resource extraction projects. We are mainly talking about 3 of
the more active camps in our area; the Unist'ot'en Camp, Madii Lii and Lax
U'u'la. The views expressed here are not representations of the camps but are
based on our individual experiences. Also each of these camps is unique and
quite different from each other.
The Unist'ot'en Camp
Probably the most well-known
of the mounting northern indigenous resistance, the Unist'ot'en define
themselves as “a non-violent occupation of Unceded Unist'ot'en territory. FPIC
(free, prior and informed consent) protocol is conducted with visitors to show
their complete jurisdiction” (unistotencamp.com). This manifestation, as a
physical block to industrial encroachment on their territory, began in 2010
with the Pacific Trails Pipeline (PTP) proposing to cross their territory
(along with 16 other nations) to connect fracked gas in the north east of the
province via a 480 km pipeline with a yet to be approved export terminal on the
northern coast.
The support for the Unist'ot'en has grown exponentially over
the years due to a variety of factors including their fierce dedication and
savvy social media use, but the largest contributing factor in my opinion has
been their annual Action Camp which invited and introduces people to their struggle
as they define it, and offers an opportunity for people to challenge themselves
within a serious experience of decolonization and reconnection with the land.
Although the space is often referred to as the 'Unist'ot'en
Camp,' they do not see themselves as a “protest or a demonstration,” but as
occupying and using their traditional territory as their clan has for
centuries. This point is essential to understanding their approach: it is not
activism, these are their lives and they are challenging the entire colonial
state of Canada.
Madii Lii
Madii Lii is a traditional
territory of the Luutkudziiwus House group which is part of the Gitxsan nation.
The Madii Lii camp was setup in August of 2014 to permanently close the
territory to industrial resource extraction and to implement their Territorial
Management Plan. It is situated in the Suskwa River valley about 35 km's
outside the town of Hazelton. A base camp has been established there,
consisting of a large permanent cabin with greenhouses and a garden space. A
heavy-duty metal gate was installed on the bridge crossing the Suskwa River.
This bridge is the only road into the territory and is now fully controlled by
family and friends of the house group.
The current proposal that Madii Lii is fighting is the
Prince Rupert Gas Transmission project which is owned by TransCanada. It would
be a 900km fracked gas (LNG) pipeline stemming from the fracking wells in
northeastern BC, which will be powered by the proposed "Site C" dam
on the Peace River, and will lead to the proposed LNG terminal on Lelu Island.
As of now, the PRGT pipeline has been granted federal approval on the condition
that the PNW LNG facility on Lelu Island gets approved.
At the beginning, pipeline surveyors were kicked out of the
territory and since then, the camp has been successful at preventing industry
from entering or conducting work on the territory. With the absence of industry
"knocking at the door", the camp has been able to focus on hunting,
trapping, fishing and wild foraging. As well as hosting events aimed at
reconnecting youth with their territory. Another focus has been on
infrastructure like more cabins, a large smokehouse for processing salmon and
moose as well as plans to install a small scale water wheel to generate power for
the cabin. Members are currently pursuing a court battle as well by filing a
judicial review of the project.
Lax U'u'la
In late August 2015, a crew
of women of Tsimshian, Haida, Nisga'a, and Gitxsan bloodlines initiated the
defense of Lax U'u'la (Lelu Island) and the Flora Bank from LNG industry
destruction. The Gitwilgyoots Tribe Sm'ogyet Yahaan (hereditary chief) and
Ligitgyet Gwis Hawaal (hereditary house leader), and their families began a
defence camp on Lax U'u'la, which is Gitwilgyoots traditional hunting and
fishing territory. They were also joined by various significant hereditary
people from other Tsimshian tribes, and a diverse crew of native and non-native
outside supporters.
This camp has been set up to prevent any further destruction
of their land, as Petronas and Pacific North West LNG (PNW LNG) are planning on
building an $11 billion liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant on Lax U'u'la, which
is at the mouth of the Skeena river near Prince Rupert, BC. They have been
conducting environmental and archaeological assessments since 2012, which have
resulted in over a hundred test hole sites and cut blocks, and have in the
process cut down numerous culturally modified trees. This facility would be fed
by 3 pipelines, including the recently provincially-approved Prince Rupert Gas
Transmission (PRGT), owned by Trans Canada, which crosses through multiple
indigenous territories, and which is currently being met with resistance from
the Gitxsan people at the Madii Lii camp. This proposed LNG plant has been
opposed not only by the Sm'ogyet Yahaan, but was unanimously refused by the 9
allied Tsimshian tribes of Lax Kw'alaams, who turned down a $1.25 billion offer
by Petronas at 3 separate meetings in Lax Kw'alaams, Vancouver, and Prince
Rupert. Regardless, in preparation for the LNG plant construction, Petronas/PNW
LNG have been trying to conduct environmental and engineering assessments
around Lax U'u'la, which includes test drilling that are actively destroying
habitat essential to all the salmon that run throughout the Skeena Watershed.
The proposed project is still under review by the Federal
Government, who have until late June 2016 to make a decision as to whether or
not it will be approved. The Lax Kw'alaams band council, without consultation
with or approval from any of the Lax Kw'alaams village members, have recently
stated their support for the project. In response to this statement of support,
the Gitwilgyoots hereditary chief, has said:
"We have been betrayed by our elected leader. Elected band councils
have no jurisdiction off of reserve land. Legal precedents in the Supreme Court
of Canada are all in our favour as hereditary chiefs, and we will fight this to
the end, whether the band council is on our side or not.”
To date, the resistance to Petronas/PNW LNG's project has
mainly been on the water. In practice, this has primarily taken the form of
trying to prevent the workers from performing any work, and disrupting
environmental and engineering assessments. This means escorting environmental surveyors
off of the Flora and Agnew Banks, preventing the drill ships from entering and
anchoring on the banks, and slowing down or turning back charter boats
transporting workers to the barges. In early February 2016, the last drilling
barges pulled off the Banks, allegedly 7 test holes short of their goal.
There is also resistance by re-asserting that Lax U'u'la is
used as a place of healing and ceremony. Infrastructure is continually being
constructed and there are other preparations for defense of the island itself
(which also serve to maintain and expand water operations). Several structures
have been built, and once there is less consistent confrontation, there is the
intention to use these spaces as a place to teach youth about ancestral ways of
living off of the land, and to heal from the continued traumas of colonization.
Although 100s of kilometres
apart, these camps are all part of the same watershed. Madii Lii is defending
the headwaters of the Suskwa River on which the camp is situated, as are the
Unist'ot'en who are located along the Wedzin Kwa (Morice River). There have
also been defense camps set up by the Tahltan people in an area of their
territory commonly known as "The Sacred Headwaters" which is where
the Skeena river originates. All of these are tributaries that flow into the
Skeena River which runs to the coast and meets the ocean at the Lax U'u'la
defense camp. Juvenile salmon feed and mature on the Flora Bank and then
eventually return to spawn in their place of origin swimming back up stream
past these camps.
A
common thread at these indigenous defense camps is not only defending a
territory, but a way of life and we, as non-native anarchists (who have also
been subject to colonization) are invested in learning and creating a nurturing
way of life through insurgent subsistence.
What
has the non-native anarchist involvement and support looked like?
Anarchist involvement and
support has been varied in both its approach and form, from organized groups,
to informal crews and individuals to fund raising, solidarity actions, and
physical presence at the camps. The location of the camps is remote to many
people in Canada, who live close to the 49th parallel and have
little experience outside of urban environments/struggle.
One of the bigger hurdles we are experiencing is in
learning how to interact with integrity with people of a social system that
challenges some core Anarchist values. For the most part, West Coast Indigenous
societies are quite hierarchical, for example historically slave holding was
common practice. So our cultural references and understandings are different,
yet not, and can be challenging to navigate.
Supporting these camps has created some interesting
situations in regards to personal safety and security. Often, as anarchists, we
engage in activities or actions with people we know and trust and close
affinity is commonly a requirement for carrying out certain plans. However, in
the heat of the moment, these personal protocols are sometimes thrown out the
window in a sudden conflict that must be dealt with. Gut instinct takes over
and you hope for the best. These struggles are not exempt from common debates
found in other movements. For example, debating violence vs. non-violence,
differences on tactics or long term strategy and disagreements on working with
the cops or the legal system are all present at times, but these camps are made
up of many different individuals with a variety of ideas and many affinities
are discovered through working with folks and building connections and
trust.
Can
you talk a bit about the methods used in these struggles? In particular, can
you speak about the use of encampments and communities literally supporting
each other and the land while potentially revitalizing traditional aspects of
their societies?
Resistance to resource
extraction projects have largely been led by indigenous communities in this
region. It is often based on defending a traditional territory that the
hereditary system has not treatied or given away. A common method has been to
build a camp or a small village directly in the path of the proposed project
and then reassert traditional social systems, putting it in the face of the
colonial system. When you set your life up around resistance, it is no longer
this separate activity that you do in your spare time. It becomes an
inseparable part of you.
At the Unis’tot’en camp for example, people have been living
there for years now asserting ownership of their traditional lands. The
infrastructure that has been built there has allowed for folks to live there
year round growing and gathering food. At the same time, industry has been
making constant attempts to enter the territory via road or helicopter and only
because of the permanent occupation of the camp are folks able to kick out
industry at every attempted entry. At Lax U'u'la, folks staying there day and
night were able to implement a routine patrol of the island and surrounding
waters. The company's attempts were regularly intercepted and delayed if not
completely shut down. The companies are unsure of how to proceed with these
situations when it is so clearly the traditional home of a group of people. The
cops are also uncertain about how to deal with these camps which we talk
further about later.
These types of resistance camps also offer opportunities
which other struggles don’t necessarily have. The down time in between
confrontations with industry offer the potential for focusing on learning
traditional and non-traditional skills that folks might not otherwise have the
time for, or at least, intentionally, put the time into. At Lax U'u'la, methods involving fishing and
setting crab traps have been used to stop industrial drilling operations. At
the Unist'ot'en camp, a trap line is in operation on the proposed path of the
pipeline. There's also some very interesting opportunities for non-natives as
well as natives to learn about the hereditary systems and cultures that
colonization has so strongly tried to erase.
What has involvement and support of these struggles
taught you about the importance and nature of decolonization as a non-native
anarchist?
Basically, show me a
colonizing people that hasn't been dispossessed and colonized in the first
place. In the fight against resource extraction in BC, I hear a lot of people
expressing the idea that it's up to native people to stop these projects
because on the one hand they have legal rights to these lands whereas
non-natives don't have any say or rights, and on the other hand there's a
recognition, especially here up north amongst pipeline opponents, that the
indigenous are a sovereign people who can act on their self-determination.
The daily lives and
minds of non-natives are so deeply colonized that to talk of self-determination,
self-organization, autonomy and freedom for ourselves is seen as an abstraction
not worth considering. Fear of consequences reigns.
From my perspective,
a movement towards decolonization coming from indigenous people will never
succeed if there isn't a parallel thrust on the part of the majority
population, i.e.; non-natives.
To think that natives
can become free and self determined on the land while the rest of us are kept
in a state of obedient wage slaves getting our food and tools at Walmart and
Home Depot, buying private property or renting from landlords, being ruled by
police, prisons and political parties and swearing allegiance to the Canadian
state, is purely delusional.
Now, we are going to
have to start sharing in a real way, both the resistance to the industrial
onslaught, the shit of repression and the beauty and bounty of subsistence. So
in a way we have already begun. We have already been invited to share the
salmon, the moose, the berries and we are offering our help on concrete
decolonization projects and strategizing and tactical discussions.
But
lets not paint a rosy picture of how things are. In leviathanic times, things
are always messy and complicated. An enormous amount of healing has to happen
before a force can be created with which the state has to contend with. And I
mean on both sides of the divide.
The reserves beside
where I live have the highest rate of suicide in BC. I think one place where we
are most needed is to help in the creation of a welcoming infrastructure
(trails, shelter, funds, outdoor equipment, skills workshops, etc.) to get the
youth out of the dead end misery that prevails on the res. and back on the
land. As non-natives, we need the same.
More
than ever we all need to experience situations where we can practice our
individual and collective power and have a taste of what an existence outside
of and against the state feels like. A rediscovery of our fighting spirit and a
capacity for mutual aid.
And,
by the way, we do need hope and love and to build respect, understanding and
trust. Too many times I find both sides using each other as cannon fodder,
media images and legal shields. We've got to stop using each other as objects
and commodities and start treating each other as human individuals, as people,
each with our own strength and weaknesses, our insights and blind spots, each
having different contexts and different stories to share. Smaller scale, face
to face, long term interactions enables this in a big way.
Together
and separately, both new comers and indigenous can ignite the embers of
community and conspire, breathe together, to fan the flames that will
eventually reduce civilized ways to cold ashes, blown by the winds of our
desires.
What has the response to these encampments been? Can
you talk a bit about the repression and backlash?
So far, compared to other
situations like Oka and Gustafsen Lake, the repression has been fairly minimal.
Confrontations are usually verbal but there is always the threat of escalation.
Last summer for example, 2 RCMP officers attempted to enter the Unis’tot’en
camp and were strongly turned around by the defenders. Soon after, it was
leaked that the RCMP were planning a massive raid of the Camp. Hotels in the
nearby towns of Smithers, Houston and Burns Lake were booked up by cops and
military vehicles were spotted in numerous areas. The RCMP setup their own roadblock harassing anyone on their
way in or out of the Unis’tot’en territory. A huge call out for support went
out, the camp swelled with supporters and preparations for defending the camp
intensified. Solidarity actions took place across the country and just when
folks thought it was going down, the cops fully withdrew. As of now the raid
still hasn’t happened and support is only growing.
At Lax U'u'la, the police would threaten to "move
in" and make arrests every time conflict heated up on the water but so far
no arrests have been made although it has been reported that there are many
open files being investigated. Industrial ships and security vessels would
frequently use their boats to ram the defenders on the water. Numerous attempts
were made on their part to flip defenders canoes and high speed boat chases
were a common occurrence. They would essentially be physical defence for the
industrial drilling barges. Heavy surveillance is present and comes in the form
of people getting followed and having house visits by the RCMP trying to obtain
information about individuals or events. This also creates psychological and
financial stress like in the case of one participant losing their job for
supporting a camp. People have also had visits from authorities out at remote
bush camps. They always want to let you know they are watching.
It's common practise now for most industry workers to either
be escorted by private security who film and record every interaction, or for
the workers themselves to be wearing chest cameras for surveillance purposes. A
question that security or industry personnel are using constantly and at
multiple camps, is asking if they are in danger or if their personal safety is
at risk being on the territory. They are trying to find and to justify a reason
to move in with force.
Aside from the mostly positive response from locals, there
are a number of people pissed off about these camps. Certain misguided
individuals feel entitled to have unobstructed access to these territories
because "This is Canada!" or "I pay taxes and its a free
country!" Largely, folks are supportive but there have been quite a few
aggressive confrontations with locals. At Madii Lii there has been at least one
attempt to cut down the gate and a few people threatening to burn the cabin
down. At the Unis’tot’en camp a few signs at the bridge checkpoint have been
firebombed and just recently someone smashed out the windows in the checkpoint
building. At Lax U'u'la, its gone as far as fist fights from pro-industry
locals and death threats from an individual armed with a knife. When an area or
territory is reclaimed it really puts the colonial situation in peoples face.
What future do you see as intensifications around
resource extraction methods are met with this communal resistance?
The infinite demands of
civilization require industrial resource extraction to expand to the point of
complete domestication of the earth. The potential for an indigenous uprising
in Canada has been reported on by the authorities for years now and as industry
and development smother more and more traditional lands, we are quickly
approaching the boiling point.
In response to similar pipeline projects, this summer we are
expecting 2 more resistance camps to emerge in the region. This is something I
think we are going to see more frequently. Little pockets of resistance popping
up all over the place, eventually saturating an area to the point where
resistance camps border other resistance camps. Entire defended territories
neighbouring other defended territories effectively become liberated autonomous
zones. When you cross the blockade, there is such a clear and inspiring feeling
that you aren’t in Canada anymore. The laws and rules of the state are not
recognized. You've got folks defending the entry point, ready to stand up to
intruding authority. Some folks are
building infrastructure, some are out hunting and some are preparing food.
These, and more, are all necessary activities to create and
defend a healthy community. It gives you a taste of what freedom might actually
feel like in an autonomous pocket of resistance outside of colonial law. The
ability to determine your own way of life based on a healthy habitat in which
we live and which we defend.
Why do you think these methods haven’t extended
beyond native resistance struggles?
The tactic of roadblocking
and setting up camps to protect and re-occupy the land has a long rich history
in native resistance to the Canadian state. So when direct action is called
for, there is a tradition to fall back on. "Hey lets do what Grandma
did!", or "Remember when Auntie and Uncle blocked that
railroad?". It shows the value of setting precedents. At the time, a lot
of these actions were brutally repressed after a few days or weeks of
negotiations.
What’s happening now in BC is that there is a legal
"grey zone" about who owns this land. Apart from Treaty 8 in
northeastern BC, most of the province sits on un-ceded, un-surrendered,
un-treatied native land according to British Law. Both The British North
America Act and The Royal Proclamation documents, are enshrined in the Canadian
Constitution.
For
150 years, the provincial government denied the need for any treaty to legally
own the land. BC is officially 92% provincial crown land, 1% Federal Crown land
and 7% fee simple private property.
This
created a climate of uncertainty for investors who actually want a solid legal
deed for their business. In order to create a "climate of certainty"
for investors, the BC government created the BC Treaty process in 1992,
designed to extinguish legal "aboriginal title", turn the reserves
into municipalities and business corporations (the so-called "First
Nations") and move on with capitalist resource extraction and development.
Needless to say the process hasn’t been smooth and even
across the board. After 23 years of negotiations and millions in legal fees,
only a few bands have come to treaty agreements.
Anyway to cut short a
long, manipulative, boring legal process, there is now a recognized
"Aboriginal Title", similar to the ownership of private property
where an "estate", an abstract entity, is owned and the actual real
existing land is owned through Allodial Title of the nation state to which is
belongs, independent of any superior landlord. Again this interpretation of
native title is being challenged by indigenous people in Canadian and
International courts.
So as the "First Nations" are invited to dialogue
at the table of power as property owners and shareholders, they legally have to
be consulted and compensated for any business happening on their traditional
territories. That is the official line anyway. The reality on the ground is
more about being conned and insulted and given a few thousand bucks per band
member in exchange for their land and resources.
Sorry for this long
legal and historical background but this is the official reality corner that
indigenous people have been pushed into in BC, and apart from the people's own
determined stance, it helps to understand why camps like the Unist'ot'en clan
have established can still exist 6 years later.
The
state is biding its time, negotiating, creating and finding its business
partners within the assimilated strata of the native population. Don't we all
need jobs? They are working hard on creating an image of support by dangling a
financial carrot so they can confuse the population and remove the
non-compliant natives who don’t have a price tag.
In
regard to non-native roadblocks or camps, there is no legal eggshells or
negotiations to be had. It is simply considered trespassing or blocking a
public road and the law moves in swiftly. There is more of a self image of the
good, law abiding, reasonable citizen in the non-native population and a
history of pacifist and civil-disobedience practice in the environmental
movement. Add to this an aesthetic and intrinsic value approach to nature
(creating parks and protected areas), instead of, or in tandem with, a
subsistence approach in which humans have an active relationship to nature, the
tactics that are risky and demanding don't gain as much popularity on this side
of land defence.
This said, over the years there have been a few non-native
tree sits and camps to stop development. Some were removed with SWAT teams
armed with automatic weapons and there have been native blockades that were met
with heavy repression too.
At this point our
approach has been to take advantage of that legal grey zone, to promote
decolonization on both sides of the divide, to dig our heels and get ready both
socially and tactically to defend the land, our autonomy and our subsistence.
We have to set new precedents for non-native resistance.
In advocating “primal war”, it’s been essential for
me to emphasize that resistance and rewilding must go hand-in-hand. This seems
the way to break out of this philosophical and revolutionary mentality where we
take care of one problem (theoretically) and then we go onto the next. That
break for me came through understanding why native resistance movements fought
to the death and revolutionaries turned to gallows: people kill for ideas, but
they are willing to fight to their death for community, for something they know
and feel.
This
kind of encampment and community-based resistance echoes eternally as
indigenous societies are met with civilizations, as they are forced to confront
perpetual growth and consumption. Is there a conception or feeling of
resistance tied to community here? Are the encampments and the like seen as an
extension of community or simply a response to occupation and ecocide?
We must view each of these
camps as completely unique from one to the next and the involvement of a
community varies quite a bit. I would say that it’s a full spectrum ranging
from very limited participation (down to a few individuals), to the full creation
of a community. We have seen communities coming together to resist as well as
communities being born out of resistance. However this brings the question;
"what is community?" We must not idealize native communities or
resistance. Colonization has severely impacted natives and non-natives and
these movements are far from flawless. They are made up of a wide range of
people from all different backgrounds and beliefs.
At most, we hope these struggles will lead to the permanent
reclamation and occupation of traditional lands outside of the colonial state.
At the very least, we hope these struggles will strengthen certain aspects of
local existing communities and promote the fighting spirit necessary for
resisting decolonization and civilization. But, the approach of insurgent
subsistence is just this, rebuilding/discovering the connection between
ourselves and the land. For some people, this was never lost, for others we are
beginning from scratch and we are building our confidences and abilities
through this struggle.
What can we, as non-native anarchists, learn from
this? Is “insurgent subsistence” a necessary part of resistance to
civilization?
What these struggles have
reinforced for me, as a non-native anarchist, is the importance of having a
community connected to such battles. And, although this is not always possible,
planting roots with others in a familial way (not necessarily based on blood but based on
affinity and connection) can build a resilient foundation for the fight against
civilization.
The process of
civilization and domestication starts with colonization, dispossession, the
annihilation of culture and the eradication of autonomy by removing us from the
land and creating dependence through waging war against subsistence. This
undeclared war has been going on for centuries and the idea of "insurgent
subsistence" is not only resisting this process but reversing it.
When
the totality of the land base is private property or state-owned, when berries
are sprayed with chemicals by logging companies, when hunting or fishing is
policed by armed goons of the government, when every tree is owned by "the
Crown", regaining a certain level of freedom and subsistence definitely
goes against this state of affairs, an insurgent spirit is inevitable.
We practice subsistence and resistance as one and the same.
One cannot sustain itself without the other and through implementing these
ideas, we can build a culture of resilience. Also, by embracing and practising
these ideas, we frequently find ourselves in situations that build community.
Every region will have different methods of resisting
civilization that work best for them. Although the need for autonomy in food,
shelter, medicine and tools, including the need to share, is universal, we can
only speak about and develop methods for our own context.
Wild subsistence is largely dependent on a healthy
undomesticated land base. However it is not only about harvesting food and
materials from the wild but about building a deep relationship with our surroundings
and this can be done anywhere. The quality of this relationship is most
important because it determines how we interact with our surroundings. Without
it, materials or food available for harvest, can be seen simply as just
resources for exploitation.
Not only do civilization, capitalism and colonization thrive
on the lack of nurturing relationships, but they perpetuate and enforce
negative and harmful interactions with all surroundings. The continuous
implementation of this dynamic and the stifling effects it has on ourselves and
our habitats, brings the ever increasing need for a fierce insurgence to put an
end to the onslaught against subsistence and freedom.
Do
you find elements of hope within these struggles that are missing in the larger
anarchist milieu? Not in terms of naivety, but in the sense that removed of
community, it seems so much easier to just go with the flow of civilized life,
to get entrapped in the hollowness of this hyper-technological non-reality and
just feel like giving up?
I've felt fulfilment and
inspiration in these struggles that I haven't experienced in other anarchist
projects. Being engaged in subsistence practices or conflict at a blockade camp
has such a strong feeling of experiencing something "real". Where as
returning home, to the dreary routine of our pretend reality, really throws it
in your face that, within civilization and capitalism, our existence is
meaningless.
The intense feeling of unquestionable purpose behind what
you are fighting for creates the experience of finally being alive with actual
clarity. Knowing that these battles will go beyond just stopping a pipeline,
creates a sense of longevity that is lacking in similar anarchist struggles.
Once these industrial projects are defeated, the camps will remain, not only to
keep future proposals at bay, but to provide an avenue for people to get back
on the land and an opportunity to realize and remember life outside of the
colonial system.
I find it incredible that one of the most effective ways of
resisting these land destroying, resource extraction projects is by learning or
remembering how to live off of these lands again. In order to fight these
projects, we need to be living on the land, and in order to live on the land we
need to be fighting these projects. Life becomes resistance and resistance
becomes life.
So much of the anarchist milieu has embraced
rhetoric over struggle, deeming anything that stands for something other than
the cherished “Self” as moralistic or delusional. It’s easy to see how that
idea prevails within Modernity, but I see no path ahead there and these
struggles are a reminder that outside of our own reality that the earth is
still here, communities are struggling to exist outside of and along the
peripheries of civilization, and that as monumental as civilization’s impact
has been, it is still reliant upon acting as though all resources are finite
and all actions are without consequence.
Is
there a reflection here of what a rooted and grounded resistance to
civilization can look like? To what barriers to perception we carry, having
been indoctrinated with the rhetoric of individualism?
When I read "outside of
and along the peripheries of civilization" I feel, I have to bring minor
corrections as to how an outsider might see daily life in those camps. As was
pointed out earlier, regular contacts and meetings with state agents are
arranged by some of the leaders and most material needs are met by buying stuff
at stores, like the rest of us. Decolonization is a complex and messy learning
process and we should render ourselves a disservice by creating idealized
images (spectacles) which have little to do with the reality on the ground.
Having said this,
there is a lot to be inspired from. As was discussed earlier the methods of
coupling determined resistance to industrial destruction and the state with the
creation of communal relations which had never completely disappeared in their
communities, rooted in the history of this land and on the land itself is
really powerful.
It is a pleasure to
see people who have been stomped on and humiliated by disease, Christianity,
schools, racism, alcohol and the British/Canadian empire to empower themselves,
to again redefine who they are and where they stand, on their own terms.
As non-natives, this
is the question we have to ask ourselves; who are we and where are we? By
grounding ourselves in our personal histories and in the history of the land we
stand on, on the actual ground, we root ourselves in real space and time. By
doing this we multiply our powers of understanding and acting on our
predicament. I have a hard time to explain this with words but I feel it and
see it in my own life. Although what lies ahead is open ended, we cannot deny
that we are our histories.
Which brings me to
this individualist polemic. It is easy to build straw men and I want to
acknowledge the diverse approaches to the same goal or even different goals,
but when you mention the primacy of rhetoric over struggle in some circles, I
see an all too familiar pattern where theoretical purity becomes a paralysing
agent. So everything becomes morality, activism, vanguardism, causes etc. And,
like some are saying, the best thing is to do nothing and point fingers.
My problem with
individualist ideology is that it stands, for some people, in opposition and
isolation to others. An intellectual vacuum constructed around the self, a wall
with a moat built around ones own identity. It is a denial of relationships and
contexts which create individual living organisms, and flowing the other way,
individual (indivisible) living organisms creating relationship and sometimes
contexts.
In a sense (narrow)
individualism is similar to modern science which puts life on a chopping block,
ready to be dissected. Historically a lot of individualist and nihilists have
been enamoured with science and technology and lets be honest, a lot of
anarchists too. The flows and swirls of life are way more complex than these
reductionist concepts, where the "Self" has become the new spectre.
In one way, we can
say that individuals are made up of their relations with others and the world
and relations are made up of and by individuals. The point is to remember that
living individual organisms are the ones experiencing life.
"Relationships" in themselves don't. This is one aspect of anarchist
thinking that has always been attractive to me; the centering on the freedom
and authenticity of the actual living person, on the free initiative and
creativity of individuals and the mutuality it implies.
But it seems that
nowadays this point of convergence has become an ingrown toenail. Instead of
becoming expansive and generous, it has become narrow and poor, it has adopted
a miser attitude that sees others as instruments and tools to be used and
discarded like any other commodity on the market. A logical conclusion to an
extreme liberal and instrumental ideology of property ownership but totally out
of whack from an anarchist perspective which is striving to create a context of
freedom for everybody.
I guess a deep feeling of defeat is prevalent in the
devastated landscape of modernity. Given
the miserable submissive slave mentality of most of my contemporaries
surrounding me, sometimes it does feel that I am encircled by enemies, hence
the wall built around oneself. But I know that determinism has never done any
of us any good. Dream crushing is the main goal of this system and
miserabilism, its main industrial output.
For
myself a dip in an ice cold creek, putting in my mouth a handful of sweet
huckleberries that were picked with friends, or listening to the wind, amongst
other things, blows away these feelings of loss. To get the fuck out of our
heads and fully into our bodies is really beneficial. And finally, to fight
back, to keep the powerful of this world from sleeping peacefully at night, to
plot, to conspire, to dream, practising mutual aid as we go, reinvigorates the
will to live full lives in spite of and against this freedom, individuality/
community and wildness devouring machine.
Our children are beginning to learn a different way to walk
and learn. As an anarchist I strive for my relations to be intentional, deep
and honest. These things matter to me so I will fight from where I am standing,
by positioning myself to the best advantage. Building these relationships not
only with the people but with the spaces, the rivers that flow from the Unist'ot'en
past Madii Lii, past where I live to the Flora Banks, we are only getting a
glimpse of what this connection and rootedness could be. I am still working out
where I fall within this whole thing, but to fight is to have integrity and
humbleness for the gifts of the world that my family eats and drinks more and
more every day.
There's
a tendency to say that anarcho-primitivists and green anarchists both
romanticize and overly critique indigenous communities and structures. As you
point out, you are working with indigenous societies that do have hierarchy as
central elements within them. I see the need to be honest in our assessments
about the impacts of domestication, but there's a difference in framing the
consequences of domestication to expose the roots and origins of civilization
and equating any instance of domestication with civilization. That was never
the point.
Having an idea about the societies and
communities that we chose to build and foster doesn't mean that sedentary
hunter-gatherers in the Pacific Northwest don't deserve support in their
struggles and their want to not be killed by civilization. There's a line
between critique and condemnation, between personal aspirations and solidarity.
As you point out, that certainly applies here. Do you find that a difficult
line to walk or does the reality of colonization just keep the perspective
pretty clear?
As anarchists we're always
dealing with the question of how to work, fight and play with non-anarchists
and traditional cultures. I've got to admit that over the years I've found more
reciprocity and anarchistic relations with indigenous people who come from a
more nomadic, small band, cultural background in the interior than in the more
sedentary and slave/commoner/nobility ranked coastal cultures. This is a
generalization, as I have met coastal folks who share our desires, but the
feeling and experience of a more rigid culture stands.
In any solidarity and decolonization efforts with
traditional cultures, we are asking ourselves; are we helping to revive
traditions that are diametrically opposed to our desire for free relationships
instead of institutionalized, coercive ones? Are we enabling a revamped version
of older national liberation schemes, where the mythical golden age of a heavenly
past before the devil appeared, is to be re-established, lock, stock, and
barrel? I think those are complex questions, given the transformative capacity
and diversity of individuals and cultures involved, and the legacy of
colonization.
It is a difficult line to walk and at the same time it is
really clear that we are guests and/or invaders, that there is an ongoing
history of genocide. My approach has been to avoid becoming a servant, and
instead to offer solid support and search for affinities with different
individuals, some becoming actual friends. At the same time, to stay open,
honest, and understanding, to listen to those I disagree with on their approach
and practice.
Both we, anarchists and traditionalists, share a disgust and
opposition to the poisoning and destruction of the land and both stand for
self-determination against the state. This is where we act in solidarity.
But only by being physically present can we start sharing
personal aspirations of horizontal relations.
I actually have seen
instances of native warriors feeling envious of the anarchist's freedom to act
as they see fit, uncontrolled by leadership and traditions but, ideally, still
humble and aware of consequences. Subversion takes many forms.
In all human cultures, the question of leadership has always
been a thorny one, especially for us as anarchists. I am told by some
indigenous folks that in pre-colonial times, the hereditary chiefs were
actually close to the ideal of leadership. They didn't boss people around,
didn't have command power but had speech power with which they summed up the
feelings and desires of the group, convinced through well-reasoned arguments,
not through coercion, listened and took into account the diversity of views,
were the poorest and the hardest working and were removed or even killed if
they became haughty or out of touch with their community.
Now, is this an accurate account of the past? Or is it an
ideal construct, like the ones for Progress, Democracy, Civilization? What I
see on the ground today is a diversity of individual hereditary leaders, some
behaving with the best intentions towards the health and freedom of their
people and territory, some are fence-sitters or contradictory, some are being
outright sell-outs or dictatorial kings and queens. Are these last instances
only a by-product of colonization? I don't think so, but I can imagine that in
the past removal and replacement procedures were well established compared to
today.
All this reminds me how little I know about the cultures that
were born on this land. It is an ongoing learning process and I find it
fascinating and exciting. I want to thank you for this interview, as it made us
work hard to put on paper what is it exactly that we are thinking and doing.
