Theory and Practice

Many indigenous scholars have diagnosed the reality. “Colonialism”,“settler colonialism”, “sovereignty” are just theories. Theories’ role is to recognize the reality accurately. Sometime, individuals feel frustrated because he/she don’t know what to do.  

According to Toward Sustainable Self-Determination: Rethinking the Contemporary Indigenous-Rights Discourse, Jeff Corntassel argues we “focus on individual, family and community responsibilities, regenerating local and regional indigenous economies, and recognizing the interconnection of social, spiritual, environmental and political aspects of self-determination.”

He proposes the concept of “sustainable self-determination.”

“ Rather than seeking recognition of our "human rights" from colonial institutions, our focus can be redirected towards local, indigenous-centered, responsibility-based movements. A responsibility-based movement enacts powers (versus rights) of sustainable self-determination and emphasizes diplomatic and trade relationships with other indigenous nations.” (Corntassel , p.122)

He take an example of Kanaka Maoli activists case.

“Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiian) activists challenged the patenting of three varieties of taro (Palehua, Paakala, and Pauakea) by the University of Hawai'i (UH) in January 2006. Kalo (taro) is a sacred plant and is considered an elder brother to the Kanaka Maoli people. After much pressure from students and taro farmers, the University of Hawai'i relinquished their patents for the three varieties of kalo on June 20, 2006. At a news conference, the UH interim chancellor, Denise Konan, handed copies of the three patents to a kalo farmer, Chris Kobayashi; the director of the Center for Hawaiian Studies, Jon Osorio; and Kanaka Maoli activist, Walter Ritte. "In unison, the three tore them in half."( Ibid., p.123).

Land and foods are the most important elements for indigenous people.

Noelani Goodyear-Ka‘ōpua also raises the questions about what to do.

“How can we build upon existing spaces of indigenous resurgence and autonomy? In what ways can we push the boundaries of the academy? How do we evolve protocols for interaction and solidarity across differences of race, gender, sexuality, class, nationality, and other forms of identification? How do we unsettle settler state authorities, without replicating the violences and exclusions we aim to stop? How can international conversations around “anarcha-indigenism” bring useful ideas and alliances to Kānaka engaged in movements for self-determination?” (Kuleana Lāhui: Collective Responsibility for Hawaiian Nationhood in

Activists’ Praxis, p.132)

In Wasase, Taiaiake Alfred is interested in “anarcho-indigenism”

“The two elements that come to my mind are indigenous, evoking cultural and spiritual rootedness in this land and the Onkwehonwe struggle for justice and freedom, and the political philosophy and movement that is fundamentally anti-institutional, radically democratic, and committed to taking action to force change: anarchism” (Wasase , p.45).

Why do they pay attention to anarchism? Is “anarcho-indigenism” an alternative to “post-imperialism”?

Taiaiake Alfred argues philosophical connection between indigenous and anarchist are “spirit of freedom” and “ideal of good society.” (Ibid., p.46).

In addition, “There are also important strategic commonalities between indigenous and anarchist ways of seeing and being in the world: a rejection of alliances with legalized systems of oppression, non-participation in the institutions that structure the colonial relationship, and a belief in bringing about change through direct action, physical resistance , and confrontations with state power.” (Ibid., p.46).

Anarchism is unrestricted theoretically, but strategic and concrete practically. Philosophical ideas are prerequisite of good planning practices. The ideas are as a guide of practice. Theory without practice will serve for nothing.