Why revolution is not enough

I seem to recall hearing positive things from Indian Country about Z. I believe the Midwest Treaty Network or organizers therein have published articles. Certainly Ward Churchill has written for Z. Z covers the indigenous movements and peoples in Chiapas and Bolivia. I believe Maori issues have been covered. I, as a mestizo indigenista have turned to Z in the past when indigenous issues were undermined by Canada, New Zealand and the U.S. diplomats to the U.N. during the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. The best I can come up without searching past issues and articles. I'm pretty certain that Z and participatory structures aim to be respectful of indigenous peoples and their ways.

I am curious who Tamarack Song is because what he says is clearly loaded and misinformative. The Odawa and Ojibwe (Anishinabe) have taught me their respect for the spirit. I was taught by Anishinabe elders: reciprocity, balance, the rule that you pick/gather/harvest 1 of 7 so that you learn how to look for the flora that would be least damaged by harvest. Members of the Powhatan, Mayans and so many more nations of indigenous peoples practiced agriculture and there is no record of Europeans 'discovering' loss of topsoil, unusual patches of erosion, or other ecological disasters that I have heard of.  We're not talking perfection in conservation and sustainability here, but we are sure talking about moving away these preconceived misunderstandings and falsehoods. I would ask of you and Tamarack Song to be specific about what peoples and ways were "damaging" or capable of "raping and plundering" and if you can't come up with a decent load of respectable research, oral histories or even anthropoligical evidence, then, I believe, these notions shouldn't be spoken. Frankly, the ol' "ignoble savage" is all I get from this. 

I'm very keen on sustainable agriculture while also respecting and seeing the need for hunting and gathering ways as well. I do not see participatory/ParEcon,-Soc focusing on industrial/agriculture to the harmful exclusion of balance or hunting/gathering.

I wrote a long response to this article, but forgot to submit it and now it's lost, so I will keep this response short.

Thanks for posting this.  There was a time when I would've agreed with this point of view, a few years ago, right after I read the book Ishmael.  That being said, I'm sure you won't be surprised that many people, including me on Z don't agree that all lifestyles but hunter-gatherer are immoral.  

You say that,  "The natural way is to take what we need and trust mother earth to take care of the rest," but what exactly do you mean by natural?  This may be the way some species live, but if it is not the way humans live, then what about our way of living is not natural?  Perhaps by natural you mean a way of living that is similar to our past, but if so, I don't think there is anything inherently moral about continuing lifestyles of the past.   I think that we have to be careful when we talk about what is natural, especially when trying to attach some moral value to the idea.

I think you quite accurately describe the harsh environment of today's world:

"We live in a world where all are senses are under constant assault: cities are noisy, the air and water are polluted, the landscape is scarred by concrete and other structures, with only a few plants growing among the cracks. Are we really better off than when we could see the stars at night, hear bird song in the morning, swim in a fresh lake?"

But, as you know, in a parecon, we can cut drastically on noise, air, and water pollution, and we can redesign the landscape of cities in the interests of humans not corporations.  Unlike now, the costs of pollution and destruction will will be accounted for in our economic decisions and likewise we will also take into account the real benefits of being able to see the stars and interact with nature.  Parecon does not necessitate that we abolish industrial society but instead it lets humans manage the costs and benefits of harmful technologies.

You say that in today's society and presumably even under parecon "our responsibility is usually to some person we will never meet, and often to someone who we will never see again."  But, I don't think this is really how society works.  I am responsible to many people that I see everyday: co-workers, family members, neighbors, and so on.  It is true that in capitalism and also in a parecon, I may produce a product that is consumed in a different part of the world, but I don't find that inherently alienating or troubling in any sense.  

I do think this merits more discussion that I'm going to give it.  

However, a point I'd make is that I doubt cavemen looked back to the good old days when they were climbing trees, or our tree dwelling ancestors looked back to the days when they were single-celled life, etc.  People have an (sometimes) extreme tendency to think of things as being better in earlier times, but they weren't.  We weren't designed, and our niche in this world is ever-changing.  While I certainly think there is merit to the idea that our consumer lifestyles don't suit us, I wouldn't go overboard (in my opinion) and say that our technology has not benefited us.

Hey Ira, I am glad you posted this. It is a very important discussion you've opened up. I must say I agree that we need to learn lessons from Indigenous peoples about stewardship, reciprocity and cooperation (in my case, in Canada, the Indigenous people in Canada, upon whose broken backs the settler society has built itself, have informed me greatly about the possibilities or the world).

However, I find your analysis to be misinformed. To assume that Indigenous peoples are mere hunter-gatherers who simply walk around at the behest of 'Mother Nature's' willingness to give or not give is to misunderstand the way in which Indigenous people interact with the natural environment in which they live. They are crucially involved in ensuring that the species that they use are healthy, and in good number; they ensure that the earth is healthy. For instance, a renowned ethnoecologist Nancy Turner wrote a book, entitled The Earth's Blanket. The book derives its name from a belief among the Nlaka'pmx peoples, commonly known as the Thompson River Salish, "that plants and grasses are the blanket of the earth, and that if too much vegetation is destroyed, the earth weeps." The wealth of ecological knowledge, and the spiritual connection to the natural world is a vital piece that could add much to your analysis. Researching Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Wisdom (TEKW) might be an idea- I can find some PDF's for you if you want! :)

As one example of ecological knowledge put into practice, there is much documentation of prescribed burning of Indigenous people in where my parents' house is, in the Okanagan, but also where I live on Vancouver Island. This prescribed burning was one technique of many used to ensure that the ecosystem was healthy; by burning under certain conditions at certain times of the year, undergrowth was reduced, and the nutrients released in the fire, and a meadow would be opened up providing habitat for deer and other animals. Moreover, the species co-evolved with the Indigenous peoples, and so they actually grow better after a fire. 

Hopefully this illustrates the inter-relationship between Indigenous peoples and their environments, and also that the Indigenous peoples were very aware of this relationship; to not be aware is to be where the majority of Canadians are: at a disconnect from people, animals, the land, themselves, and indeed the entire planet. 

I agree that Indigenous societies were more inclusive- truer communities- than what we have today. One question I need to ask is: have you heard of the term 'Noble Savage'? This is what I derived from reading your piece: its a type of patronizing racism that is based on European notions of what the 'Indian' is like. Indeed, as scholar Ronald Niezen points out in his book, The origins of Indigenism: human rights and the politics of identity, sometimes our notions of Indigenous people create impossible double standards and thus deny Indigenous groups their legitimate claims.

I must admit that I, too, prescribed to similar ideas in the past. I still agree that we need to learn from Indigenous peoples, as they evolved with this land, and they are the land. One thing about Parecon that worries me is that it may just be another settler construct that is forced upon Indigenous peoples. This is a question that I've been meaning to ask Michael Albert on the forums for a while, but not being Indigenous myself, I don't feel qualified to be able to engage in a thorough discussion as I've only begun to understand my own misunderstanding.

Anyways, I'd just like to say thanks again for posting this. This is a very important topic: Ward Churchill would agree (see http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/19679 for some very good information).