Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


0 votes
In Seaweed's "Land and Freedom" the idea is there but many don't have tribes but may enjoy forming them as we attempt to live closer to subsistence living. Tribes in America exist and there may be ways of joining them, but I would prefer starting autonomous.

Related things I want to consider are how the governments interact with native tribes and how native tribes may accept my tribe as real.

Edited: Fixed misspellings
by (3.9k points)
edited by
Further information: Most attempts in the United States to claim Native American heritage have to get recognized by the federal government and/or state government. They would have to give a record of genealogy and show that a culture still continues to exist to deserve this. Furthermore, it appears that after WW2 an attempt to give reparations occurred, but those that accepted also accepted assimilation and lost the ability to gain recognition.

I need to continue research, but it appears also that a "tribe" is more of a quasi-state and/or a form of organization made to resist states. Some evidence exists that point to tribes not existing until the interaction of hunter gatherer bands with states. Anyway, I figured I'd provide further information as I recognize this is a question of experiment and exploration, though very real and sincere one.

Is a tribe a cluster of hunter gatherer bands united in common cause? Sure, we could call the "band" a family, but in this age, another interpretation would be a band as a group attempting to practice bushcraft as a way to supplement their life, in the hope it can be fully practiced and discovering the limitations.
After more research, it seems to me that the main key element is petitioning for free use of land or to seize land for use as a habitat. A tribe that has potential to be legally recognized or is legally recognized has the power to legitimately claim land to use for a habitat. Any one outside of this would have to go the route of free use access of land to practice subsistence living.

On the flip side, if we were tribal and the tribal government did not want to use the land for habitat living (i.e. practice traditional ways), we still could do the same...petition for use of land for free access. If they wanted to deny those outside from being able to, but enable their own, we could start a communication on this.

However, this all sort of stinks of participating with authoritarian systems. If I attempted to form a tribe that has no claim of indigenous roots, it may be one that A. would not be legally recognized nor seek legal recognition B. would not make land claims contra other tribes C. would attempt to practice bushcraft as a supplement to living where one finds oneself. This to me points to being a nomadic tribe, perhaps taking form as other nomads before.
interesting...  you seem to be somewhat hung up on the definition (and legality) of "tribe". or have i misunderstood? does your desire for living situation depend on some predefined form of grouping?  or for that matter, some legal status?  just curious...

i have read "land and freedom", i enjoyed it enough. i tend to shy away from the idolization of "indigenous" peoples (not to say i don't think there is much to learn from those lifeways), which i think seaweed does a bit in that book. but the book does have some good stuff in it. excellent food for thought.
also, i should mention that i live on land that, while considered uninhabitable because of lack of water and any other infrastructure (and harsh conditions), is exactly the kind of land that could be pretty easily "claimed" by whoever is willing to live there and create their own life. that is exactly what i have done. the legal status is somewhat questionable, but the location and situation make it so that the state almost never even shows its face. most folks out here are squatting, and the idea of "eviction" is a huge joke. even if someone tried to come in legally to evict a squatter, they would be.... unsuccessful, let me just say. unless it was a military incursion, which is less than unlikely here.

if you are interested in discussing my situation and whether it might have any relevance to your own desires, i'd be happy to. maybe not in the comments of @101, though.  :-)
I'm more exploring it. Most times when I see desires for a "tribe" it is usually some fantasy warrior thing or other nonsense. I wanted to examine what a "real" legally recognized tribe was and figure out how that can be reconciled with the typical origin story of when tribes first formed.

I find Seaweed's direction to be similar to mine and I wanted to overcome the issue of indigenous people and non-indigenous people attempting to interact on the land they are on or would like to claim as a habitat. What should be known is that attempts to give indigenous peoples the ability to practice on their lands is already an existing practice in many countries.

However, as an anarchist, what is my solution? What I'm concerned about are permanent nomads, like the Rom (traditional gypsy-styled culture) as well as other nomad cultures, like pastoral ones. Cultures that cross over the hunter-gatherer tradition with nomadic behavior.

To me, anarchists have already moving in this direction with traveler kids, but the expression of family has not yet developed from these cultures. With so many from damaged families and following unhealthy drug addicted lifestyles, anarchists could hardly point to this a a desirable culture of resistance to grow our families in. There are many exceptions to this, I've heard of traveler kid "tribes" which might not need the scare quotes if we could come to a definition of tribe that is something people can create now.

There is a need for kinship in a tribe, it is a group of families in the most traditional understanding. Why would we want a tribe in today's society. For the very reason many sources attribute to the formation of a response and in resistance to the state...but in this case, in response to a society dominated by a social order that makes traditional forms of rebellion impossible. Tribes and families offer a tighter and more long term group connection over temporary groups. As people become more and more separated from each other through technological devices, a tribe would attempt to counteract this with more face-to-face interaction.

A tribe can support many members on very little amount of labor given to the system. As there are many ways to supplement a tribe's resources and a nomadic one has little bills beyond transportation (fuel, vehicle maintenance, etc.), tribal members could rotate the "responsibility" of holding down regular employment to support the tribe until it is ready to move on, as an example of reducing reliance on the present order and building community at the same time.

You speak of an area that is hostile to law enforcement, I'm sure there are many pockets like this out there. A nomadic tribe (or series of nomadic tribes) would benefit such areas if a mutual relationship could be formed, just a thought on the matter.

Please log in or register to answer this question.