I am once again asking anarchists to stop claiming the Zapatistas as anarchists, in spite of their long held explicit wishes. This shit is so gross, they have said over and over again that they are not anarchists, but nope just deny their self-image and indigenous movement in order to feel good about yourself. It is peak imperial gaze, and it is getting real freaking old fast
I do not mean to imply that they identify as such or are, in fact anarchists, but that like in much the same way that calculus has been discovered over time and even in parallel, these things are like universal constants. For the purposes of arguing against as dipshit a take as bad empanada had, anarchism and zapatismo are close enough to debunk the idea that those sorts of ideas and ideologies are irrelevant and nonexistent outside of the imperial core.
Except you prove BE right by using the example of......people of color who are explicitly NOT anarchists. If you keep going to an example outside the imperial core, whose open message to you is "stop calling us anarchists, you are being chauvinistic" you _really are not helping your case that your ideology isn't Eurocentric.
I would say a worse take than his would be doing something that an indigenous movement that has actually gotten shit done has informed people repeatedly not to do. The Zapatistas are not in fact, a prop for
the purposes of arguing against as dipshit a take
and the fact that you used them, exactly in the context BE was mocking anarchists online for, and that the Zapatistas have called anarchists out for; is exactly why people have that take. If you don't want people making that dipshit take, steer clear of chauvinistic claims about indigenous movements for the sake of winning an argument.
Can you see how your reasoning/motive is exactly why groups like the EZLN are so annoyed with that shit? Saying "I only did it in order to do the thing they hate people doing" doesn't make it ok. If a group wants to consider itself a "universal constant" fine, but when they don't, then respect that and don't decide it for them explicitly for the purpose of arguing. Respecting that should really go above and beyond any rhetorical benefit or victory
I am once again asking anarchists to stop claiming the Zapatistas as anarchists, in spite of their long held explicit wishes. This shit is so gross, they have said over and over again that they are not anarchists, but nope just deny their self-image and indigenous movement in order to feel good about yourself. It is peak imperial gaze, and it is getting real freaking old fast
I do not mean to imply that they identify as such or are, in fact anarchists, but that like in much the same way that calculus has been discovered over time and even in parallel, these things are like universal constants. For the purposes of arguing against as dipshit a take as bad empanada had, anarchism and zapatismo are close enough to debunk the idea that those sorts of ideas and ideologies are irrelevant and nonexistent outside of the imperial core.
Except you prove BE right by using the example of......people of color who are explicitly NOT anarchists. If you keep going to an example outside the imperial core, whose open message to you is "stop calling us anarchists, you are being chauvinistic" you _really are not helping your case that your ideology isn't Eurocentric.
I would say a worse take than his would be doing something that an indigenous movement that has actually gotten shit done has informed people repeatedly not to do. The Zapatistas are not in fact, a prop for
and the fact that you used them, exactly in the context BE was mocking anarchists online for, and that the Zapatistas have called anarchists out for; is exactly why people have that take. If you don't want people making that dipshit take, steer clear of chauvinistic claims about indigenous movements for the sake of winning an argument.
Can you see how your reasoning/motive is exactly why groups like the EZLN are so annoyed with that shit? Saying "I only did it in order to do the thing they hate people doing" doesn't make it ok. If a group wants to consider itself a "universal constant" fine, but when they don't, then respect that and don't decide it for them explicitly for the purpose of arguing. Respecting that should really go above and beyond any rhetorical benefit or victory