Add new comment

I participated in that discussion pretty intensely, so intensely that except for that last exchange where you got burned, all those comments about identity-defensiveness were mine! No exaggeration.

Chisel and greg don't have any more "authority" or "power" than any of the anons on this website. I appreciate that they went into greater depths concerning something submitted than they normally do. However, it is understandable that in this rare moment they only critiqued your response what somebody said:

"Really liked this article. It is too bad the use of the word "settler" has frightened some of you. What if we now pretend a different word, more amenable to discussion is being used? You do understand what is meant by this word, yes? Something like: one whose ancestors are not from this place. This applies to many of us then, without any stigma.

I know it can be hard for anarchists to be told they can't do a particular thing, that knee-jerk reactionary streak rearing its ugly head again, but maybe it is okay not to be allowed to do this one thing, you know, just this once.
Because, what do you know about the bio region you are residing on now, how long have you lived there, what does the air smell like after the first rain, who are your neighbors? I have parents and grandparents buried in the state I'm in, but none of them were born in this state. How many generations of my DNA recycled through the Earth does it take to become "from" a place? And how do we calculate that if the way one's ancestors lived in place never took into account the actual, you know, place?"

I thought your response to this extraordinarily condescending comment overall wasn't so out of line, if i were chisel/greg i wouldn't have framed the response the way that they did. The commenter, having argued with the person, was clearly talking about me, but the issue that the word "settler" does not frighten me, nor is this comment really accomplishing anything useful than hurling more implied insults:

"I know it can be hard for anarchists to be told they can't do a particular thing, that knee-jerk reactionary streak rearing its ugly head again, but maybe it is okay not to be allowed to do this one thing, you know, just this once."

Okay: so reactionary is a word that's thrown around pretty freely now adays. Historically, it seems to mean a right-wing defense of the status quo.

Also, i was not asking for anybodies permission to use an indigenous identity, as the last sentence quoted implies. The commenter you were responding to seems to think that part of being an anarchist means cart-blanche accepting being told what to do. I don't really blame this anon for that, as part of being a human implies some sort of control/manipulation. However, as i said before, the commenter they praised on the show was just as condescending as I was defensive...