This is my issue with anarchist and others who are against centralize authority they almost never include indigenous institutions, and the decolonization process.
I like this point about how indigenous communities embody what a lot of... let's say 'counter-ideologies' claim to be about. But am I right in thinking some of your claims are a bit more Amazon/Brazil/Latin America-focused? From a (thoroughly white, but maybe a _bit_ informed) Canadian perspective... I don't want to understate how absolutely wretchedly the Canadian govt has treated and often still treats indigenous people. But the sense I get is that most indigenous groups have working relationships with it, and expect it to guarantee their autonomy and special status, support their initiatives... on top of which there are lots of indigenous people in territorial govts and a few federally and provincially, lots of indigenous groups make money off resource extraction done on their land, &c. And again, _NOT_ to say that there isn't tonnes of fuckery on the state/colonial/my side of the equation, or that any of the above working relationships are supported by indigenous Canadians or means that the govt is in their good books, certainly not unanimously. Just that I'm not actually certain indigenous people are opposite states and capitalism in a clear binary.
Hi, man! First of all, thank you so much for your thoughtful comment and for being part of this growing community we’re building here on the channel! I really appreciate you taking the time to engage and bring more nuance to the discussion - it means a lot. You’re absolutely right that my perspective is more focused on South America, particularly Brazil and the Amazon. The main point of the video is to introduce Indigenous worldviews and ontologies as a counterpoint to ideologies like Anarchism, Communism, or even Anarcho-Capitalism. It’s fascinating to consider that many of these Indigenous communities already live in ways that could be seen as deeply “subversive” by our city-based standards. I say “subversive” in quotes because, for them, this is just their culture - it’s normal and natural. It only seems subversive to those of us who’ve distanced ourselves from the forest. Regarding Canada, I’ll admit I don’t know enough about the situation there to comment in detail, but your point about the complexities of Indigenous relationships with the State is valid. We see something similar here in Brazil, where some individuals within Indigenous communities advocate for land demarcation but for a purpose that aligns more with resource extraction and economic logic. This was actually a narrative pushed by Jair Bolsonaro, who infamously brought some of these individuals to the UN, saying, “Indigenous people also want to be human,” as if living outside the capitalist framework somehow diminished their humanity. This is why it’s so important to turn to the words and philosophies of Indigenous leaders and thinkers like Ailton Krenak, Davi Kopenawa Yanomami, Sonia Guajajara, and Raoni Metuktire. Their vision of land demarcation is very different from what we’ve seen in places like the U.S., where reservations have sometimes been reduced to individual property that can then be used for extractive purposes, like fracking or opening casinos, for example. In Brazil, the goal of land demarcation is to create communal spaces that belong to the Indigenous peoples as a collective, not as individuals. And I use “belong” cautiously because Indigenous philosophy often rejects the very concept of ownership. This collective stewardship of land ensures not only the preservation of Indigenous culture but also of the forest itself. If you look at the data, the demarcated territories in Brazil are the ones least affected by deforestation and fires. When these areas are damaged, it’s almost always because illegal miners or land grabbers are encroaching on Indigenous lands. To add a local perspective from my city, Curitiba, here, there’s a demarcated area for Indigenous peoples, but it’s far too small for them to sustain their traditional way of life. They can’t rely on hunting or practice temporary agriculture without harming the ecosystem too much, so many have been forced into a more “Westernized” lifestyle. They live in houses, often isolated from one another, and the sense of community - such an integral part of their culture - has significantly diminished. To make matters worse, they’ve been grouped together with individuals from different tribes and ethnicities, which has deepened divisions and even created prejudice between groups. This forced coexistence erodes the bonds that once defined their cultures and amplifies individualism. This is why it’s so important to rethink how land demarcation is approached. It’s not just about giving them “enough” land to live as we do, but about ensuring they have the space to live according to their cultural practices, to preserve their traditions, and to maintain their collective identity. This is an incredibly complex issue, and it demands solutions that prioritize not only their survival but the preservation of their unique worldviews and ways of life. So I totally understand your concern, and it’s a valid one. There is always a risk of these lands being exploited if we allow the same logic of Western-style property ownership to dominate. That’s why it’s crucial to counteract this narrative and focus on philosophies like the one Ailton Krenak developed in the late 1980s alongside Chico Mendes and others: the concept of florestania (Forestizenship). Florestania (Forestizenship), as Krenak explains, contrasts with the idea of cidadania (citizenship). While citizenship is about individual rights, private property, and participation in democratic processes, forestizenship emphasizes seeing yourself as part of the forest - as part of a greater ecosystem where all beings, human and non-human, have a role. It’s a worldview where nature itself is seen as a form of culture. Krenak also talks about the need to “reforest our imagination.” Life in big cities and urban centers has stripped us of the ability to imagine other ways of living, other ways of existing. To him, this is a vital step in breaking out of the capitalist “realism” that dominates so much of our thinking. And I use “realism” here more in the literary sense than the categorical one. It’s not reality - it’s a kind of romanticized realism where capitalism appears as the only “real” option. But it’s not The Real. We need to reconnect with the wisdom of these ancestral worldviews, of these ancestral ontologies, which hold incredible potential for imagining new futures. There’s so much knowledge in these Indigenous perspectives, even if much of academia and science still refuse to fully recognize it. No one knows the forest better than the Indigenous peoples who have lived there for generations. Of course, I’m talking about Indigenous communities that strive to preserve their worldview and ontologies, not those who have been co-opted by the capitalist machine - whether it’s the examples you mentioned or the ones I brought up. Thanks again for your comment. It’s always a pleasure to have this kind of nuanced discussion, and I appreciate you helping to enrich the conversation.
Ask your community to help you answer that. Whatever effort that entails. Commit to doing that and you'll find some answers. If not, then start by learning to love yourself more and more authentically.
It won't, this video is just white guy cope but honestly we're all in this together, and as a hispanic we've always been more willing to team up with indigenous groups than a lot of other folks.
@@IbnRushd-mv3fp As hispanic, unless you're living in the Iberian peninsula, you're descendant of colonizers and conquerors. Then again, so is everyone.
I don't understand enough about the topic to contribute anything meaningful, I am simply interested in the subject. I will try to acquire the reading material you recommended. This subject is interesting to me in a way i can't fully articulate. just leaving this head to promote your vid, keep up the good work
If countries cared about their native populations they would be included in government. Example. You will never see a representative of the native american people in American congress for example.
The colonists were exposed to a living viable democracy through trade with Indigenous cultures (Wabenaki Confederation, for example, etc, etc). Founding fathers did not make this up out of nowhere. Marx researched the Mohawks of Kahnewake (sadly, he mistook them for a patriarchy tho) and had it influence his work. Essentially, much of today's Western world is run by a poorly understood, bastardized and appropriated version of governance that was taken out of context and used to forge unsustainable practices, one that ignorantly is never properly credited due to deeply ingrained notions of historical racial supremacy. WHere's Kermit?? SOmebody cue the F'n TEA FROG. 🐸🫖🍵
Do you have any examples of natives living “in harmony” with the earth? Are you saying that the natives just lived in stasis and never cut down any trees or kill any animals?
That's not what living in harmony with nature means, you ignoramus. It means living as a part of an ecosystem, IE being a part of a sustainable food web.
It's vague to say "harmony" and even dangerous to say harmony because of ideas like romanticism that extrapolate a naive way of thinking from actual indigenous people's cultures Also I'm a layperson with no rigorous knowledge of the subject, but I figure if we're both laymen it shouldn't matter all that much, right? Anyway I'm in North America and I have a little knowledge of the different North American indigenous people's relationship with nature, and I know there are better ways to describe it than "harmonious" it's more like respect, and usually it takes on the form of something that looks like political alliances and tensions with nature, like how different species are imagined each as sovereign nations with their own wills and interests. Even without the insights of modern science lots of indigenous cultures had ideas about symbiosis, like how there's interdependences and correspondences between all the different species in nature; they're all connected even if the connection is that one animal species controls the population of another by eating it all the time. When you consider that, the human animal is just one species among many with it's own needs but also it's own responsibilities in the vast political network of it's environment. Humans are not the sole owners of the land, but citizens who are dependent on things like the grass and the trees.
Everything is nice. If you want to support indigenous people then prepare for food, medicine and technology shortages. Unless you live very Spartan which this doesn't apply.
Only with industrial-scale architecture will we feed the number of people currently on this planet. If we all decide to forage and hunt, I reckon we will starve/cannibalize at a large scale. But I understand your position is probably not absolutist. Connection with nature and compassion for other living beings (yes, including trees) is indeed lacking in our society and will bring our downfall if we somehow manage to deal with all out other problems. If we all stopped consuming animal products, buying useless shit online, et cetera, we could and would prevail. IF !!!
Okay, while I am totally on board with recognizing the sovereignty of the Native Americans... your description of them is 99% false. They were generally not decentralized, not libertarian, not anarchist, and certainly not 'in harmony with nature.' This is noble savage tripe.
This makes zero sense. Indigenous people fought wars against each other all the time. It's just that European settlers conquered them with better technology. Siding with indigenous people is like permanently betting every day on the losing horse at the track.
![ILLSLICK X YOUNGOHM - We're The same [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yUJNkobYR0E/mqdefault.jpg)
![ค้าง (STILL) - GEMINI [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ftxx3hk5vkU/mqdefault.jpg)
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](/img/n.gif)
This is my issue with anarchist and others who are against centralize authority they almost never include indigenous institutions, and the decolonization process.
Sleeping in the cold, and blending in with nature, so the enemy doesn't see you ...
I like this point about how indigenous communities embody what a lot of... let's say 'counter-ideologies' claim to be about. But am I right in thinking some of your claims are a bit more Amazon/Brazil/Latin America-focused?
From a (thoroughly white, but maybe a _bit_ informed) Canadian perspective... I don't want to understate how absolutely wretchedly the Canadian govt has treated and often still treats indigenous people. But the sense I get is that most indigenous groups have working relationships with it, and expect it to guarantee their autonomy and special status, support their initiatives... on top of which there are lots of indigenous people in territorial govts and a few federally and provincially, lots of indigenous groups make money off resource extraction done on their land, &c.
And again, _NOT_ to say that there isn't tonnes of fuckery on the state/colonial/my side of the equation, or that any of the above working relationships are supported by indigenous Canadians or means that the govt is in their good books, certainly not unanimously. Just that I'm not actually certain indigenous people are opposite states and capitalism in a clear binary.
Hi, man! First of all, thank you so much for your thoughtful comment and for being part of this growing community we’re building here on the channel! I really appreciate you taking the time to engage and bring more nuance to the discussion - it means a lot.
You’re absolutely right that my perspective is more focused on South America, particularly Brazil and the Amazon. The main point of the video is to introduce Indigenous worldviews and ontologies as a counterpoint to ideologies like Anarchism, Communism, or even Anarcho-Capitalism. It’s fascinating to consider that many of these Indigenous communities already live in ways that could be seen as deeply “subversive” by our city-based standards. I say “subversive” in quotes because, for them, this is just their culture - it’s normal and natural. It only seems subversive to those of us who’ve distanced ourselves from the forest.
Regarding Canada, I’ll admit I don’t know enough about the situation there to comment in detail, but your point about the complexities of Indigenous relationships with the State is valid. We see something similar here in Brazil, where some individuals within Indigenous communities advocate for land demarcation but for a purpose that aligns more with resource extraction and economic logic. This was actually a narrative pushed by Jair Bolsonaro, who infamously brought some of these individuals to the UN, saying, “Indigenous people also want to be human,” as if living outside the capitalist framework somehow diminished their humanity.
This is why it’s so important to turn to the words and philosophies of Indigenous leaders and thinkers like Ailton Krenak, Davi Kopenawa Yanomami, Sonia Guajajara, and Raoni Metuktire. Their vision of land demarcation is very different from what we’ve seen in places like the U.S., where reservations have sometimes been reduced to individual property that can then be used for extractive purposes, like fracking or opening casinos, for example. In Brazil, the goal of land demarcation is to create communal spaces that belong to the Indigenous peoples as a collective, not as individuals. And I use “belong” cautiously because Indigenous philosophy often rejects the very concept of ownership.
This collective stewardship of land ensures not only the preservation of Indigenous culture but also of the forest itself. If you look at the data, the demarcated territories in Brazil are the ones least affected by deforestation and fires. When these areas are damaged, it’s almost always because illegal miners or land grabbers are encroaching on Indigenous lands.
To add a local perspective from my city, Curitiba, here, there’s a demarcated area for Indigenous peoples, but it’s far too small for them to sustain their traditional way of life. They can’t rely on hunting or practice temporary agriculture without harming the ecosystem too much, so many have been forced into a more “Westernized” lifestyle. They live in houses, often isolated from one another, and the sense of community - such an integral part of their culture - has significantly diminished.
To make matters worse, they’ve been grouped together with individuals from different tribes and ethnicities, which has deepened divisions and even created prejudice between groups. This forced coexistence erodes the bonds that once defined their cultures and amplifies individualism.
This is why it’s so important to rethink how land demarcation is approached. It’s not just about giving them “enough” land to live as we do, but about ensuring they have the space to live according to their cultural practices, to preserve their traditions, and to maintain their collective identity. This is an incredibly complex issue, and it demands solutions that prioritize not only their survival but the preservation of their unique worldviews and ways of life.
So I totally understand your concern, and it’s a valid one. There is always a risk of these lands being exploited if we allow the same logic of Western-style property ownership to dominate. That’s why it’s crucial to counteract this narrative and focus on philosophies like the one Ailton Krenak developed in the late 1980s alongside Chico Mendes and others: the concept of florestania (Forestizenship).
Florestania (Forestizenship), as Krenak explains, contrasts with the idea of cidadania (citizenship). While citizenship is about individual rights, private property, and participation in democratic processes, forestizenship emphasizes seeing yourself as part of the forest - as part of a greater ecosystem where all beings, human and non-human, have a role. It’s a worldview where nature itself is seen as a form of culture.
Krenak also talks about the need to “reforest our imagination.” Life in big cities and urban centers has stripped us of the ability to imagine other ways of living, other ways of existing. To him, this is a vital step in breaking out of the capitalist “realism” that dominates so much of our thinking. And I use “realism” here more in the literary sense than the categorical one. It’s not reality - it’s a kind of romanticized realism where capitalism appears as the only “real” option. But it’s not The Real.
We need to reconnect with the wisdom of these ancestral worldviews, of these ancestral ontologies, which hold incredible potential for imagining new futures. There’s so much knowledge in these Indigenous perspectives, even if much of academia and science still refuse to fully recognize it. No one knows the forest better than the Indigenous peoples who have lived there for generations.
Of course, I’m talking about Indigenous communities that strive to preserve their worldview and ontologies, not those who have been co-opted by the capitalist machine - whether it’s the examples you mentioned or the ones I brought up.
Thanks again for your comment. It’s always a pleasure to have this kind of nuanced discussion, and I appreciate you helping to enrich the conversation.
I am a member of the indigenous people. How is supporting me gonna help anyone (except me)?
Ask your community to help you answer that. Whatever effort that entails. Commit to doing that and you'll find some answers. If not, then start by learning to love yourself more and more authentically.
It won't, this video is just white guy cope but honestly we're all in this together, and as a hispanic we've always been more willing to team up with indigenous groups than a lot of other folks.
@@IbnRushd-mv3fp As hispanic, unless you're living in the Iberian peninsula, you're descendant of colonizers and conquerors. Then again, so is everyone.
I don't understand enough about the topic to contribute anything meaningful, I am simply interested in the subject. I will try to acquire the reading material you recommended. This subject is interesting to me in a way i can't fully articulate. just leaving this head to promote your vid, keep up the good work
Stay MKUltraCool:3
If countries cared about their native populations they would be included in government.
Example. You will never see a representative of the native american people in American congress for example.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Native_Americans_in_the_United_States_Congress
The colonists were exposed to a living viable democracy through trade with Indigenous cultures (Wabenaki Confederation, for example, etc, etc). Founding fathers did not make this up out of nowhere. Marx researched the Mohawks of Kahnewake (sadly, he mistook them for a patriarchy tho) and had it influence his work. Essentially, much of today's Western world is run by a poorly understood, bastardized and appropriated version of governance that was taken out of context and used to forge unsustainable practices, one that ignorantly is never properly credited due to deeply ingrained notions of historical racial supremacy.
WHere's Kermit?? SOmebody cue the F'n TEA FROG. 🐸🫖🍵
Do you have any examples of natives living “in harmony” with the earth? Are you saying that the natives just lived in stasis and never cut down any trees or kill any animals?
That's not what living in harmony with nature means, you ignoramus. It means living as a part of an ecosystem, IE being a part of a sustainable food web.
It's vague to say "harmony" and even dangerous to say harmony because of ideas like romanticism that extrapolate a naive way of thinking from actual indigenous people's cultures
Also I'm a layperson with no rigorous knowledge of the subject, but I figure if we're both laymen it shouldn't matter all that much, right? Anyway I'm in North America and I have a little knowledge of the different North American indigenous people's relationship with nature, and I know there are better ways to describe it than "harmonious" it's more like respect, and usually it takes on the form of something that looks like political alliances and tensions with nature, like how different species are imagined each as sovereign nations with their own wills and interests. Even without the insights of modern science lots of indigenous cultures had ideas about symbiosis, like how there's interdependences and correspondences between all the different species in nature; they're all connected even if the connection is that one animal species controls the population of another by eating it all the time. When you consider that, the human animal is just one species among many with it's own needs but also it's own responsibilities in the vast political network of it's environment. Humans are not the sole owners of the land, but citizens who are dependent on things like the grass and the trees.
Everything is nice. If you want to support indigenous people then prepare for food, medicine and technology shortages. Unless you live very Spartan which this doesn't apply.
I like this, thank you! Though I disagree. No one lives freely, and those that did were conquered in history unwritten.
Only with industrial-scale architecture will we feed the number of people currently on this planet. If we all decide to forage and hunt, I reckon we will starve/cannibalize at a large scale. But I understand your position is probably not absolutist.
Connection with nature and compassion for other living beings (yes, including trees) is indeed lacking in our society and will bring our downfall if we somehow manage to deal with all out other problems. If we all stopped consuming animal products, buying useless shit online, et cetera, we could and would prevail.
IF !!!
And what about the indigenous people of Europe? Are you gonna support an all-white indigenous communal society?
The Saami People? Its not about the skin colour, its about the relationship to the land.
he is not talking about or defending that
@@TobiasReiner-o8g idk
Okay, while I am totally on board with recognizing the sovereignty of the Native Americans... your description of them is 99% false. They were generally not decentralized, not libertarian, not anarchist, and certainly not 'in harmony with nature.' This is noble savage tripe.
Wrong. Typical settler white supremacist nonsense.
Bro got his knowledge from pocahontas or some shit, literally this doesn't describe anyone not maori not inuit just pure fantasy lore 😂
but i dont hate the State...
No
This makes zero sense. Indigenous people fought wars against each other all the time. It's just that European settlers conquered them with better technology. Siding with indigenous people is like permanently betting every day on the losing horse at the track.
Did europeans not fight eachother all the time? We literally have countless documented examples
Edit: thx so much for the likes guys!!!