space + time = will

The challenge of past generations to this structure of force now over us, called colonialism was uttered when as Fanon wrote concerning those past struggles “they fought as well they could ... and if the echoes of their struggle have not resounded in the international arena … this silence lies less in their lack of heroism than in the fundamentally different international situation of our time.” This war between the descendents of European colonizers, their lackey’s and the indigenous inhabitants of this land is ongoing and in the end we will prevail. The only question that remains is whether our world will be sick and twisted copy of the European legacy that has dragged and mutilated our planet to the brink of extinction or a nation built on the principles of sustaining life.

Franz Fanon, the intellectual ambassador of African anti-colonization has shown through his work the necessity of opposing our oppressors to whatever extent we deem necessary in order to end the colonial project. However, he warns repeatedly against eliminating the colonizer simply to replace them or recreate their structure by our inaction, “If we want to turn Africa into a new Europe, and America in to a new Europe, then let us leave the destiny of our countries to Europeans. They will know how to do it better that the most gifted among us.”

Fanon understood the colonial dilemma facing so-called third world people then and now. He clearly saw and experienced how indigenous cultures under colonialism begin to dissipate as the assault by the colonial system is focused on every facet of who they are as a people. This attack on the fabric of our civilizations is what makes us become jealous puppets, dark shadows of our colonial masters, it is the cultural sickness that makes it possible for us to unwittingly duplicate their system of oppression. Again Fanon points out the dialectical nature of colonial oppression to those who will listen when he writes, “Colonialism is not satisfied merely with holding a people in its grip…by a kind of perverted logic, it turns to the past of the oppressed peoples and distorts, disfigures, and destroys it.” We must choose our own path by finding ways to restore a mental veiw of Xicanos as indigenous people in the Americas. Once the battle for this land is joined and it was joined full scale the day our first ancestors were slaughtered by European invaders there is no turning back, “when a people undertakes an armed struggle or even a political struggle against a relentless colonialism, the significance of tradition changes” writes Fanon. This struggle is or becomes the main vehicle for developing the necessary power/force to challenge the power of the colonial state.
In his reading of Walter Benjamin’s classic essay “Critique of Violence” Algerian born French philosopher Jacques Derrida asserts every society is initiated by the use of force. A supposition that can be easily supported with the creation of colonial nations; this force (Gewalt) , which upholds the law of society and establishes “the foundation … in a situation that one can thus call revolutionary. It inaugurates a new law; it always does so in violence.” It is exactly this idea that colonized people must examine closely. If all society is founded in force or violence, and certainly we see the truth of that in situation of indigenous people in the Americas, then what role can there possibly be for nonviolence to play in founding a new society, even if that non-violence is based in a determined struggle? How does a combination of these diametrically opposed philosophies contribute to the political power of indigenous peoples in the Americas?

What then is the source for creating this society creating force? We begin a discourse, search for truth in our choices and allow that truth to create an oppositional force to colonialism within the framework of our colonized minds. In the past this has created what some call revolutionary violence. However, it was revolutionary or transformative only to the extent it swept away the old oppressive system. Can the type of force (Gewalt), which Derrida and Benjamin define as “the dominance of legal power, the authorizing or authorized authority: the force of law” be exerted by nonviolent means? Derrida goes on to explain there are two different outcomes with the use of this type of force (Gewalt) which he calls a “distinction between the two kinds of violence of law, in relation to law: the founding violence, the one that institutes and posits law and the violence that preserves, the one that maintains, confirms, insures the permanence and enforceability of law.” Can indigenous people use a version of nonviolence as political defiance? Can non-violence rise to the level of “founding violence [Force/Gewalt], the one that institutes and posits law”?

We must strive for a transformative force that extends beyond anger and works itself into the fabric of national proposals. The idea we can make our lives and the lives of our people better by simply overthrowing our colonizers in some type of final cataclysmic conflict has had its day. Fanon tells us “history teaches us clearly that the battle against colonialism does not run straight along lines of nationalism,” This is an unconcluded struggle whose ending must be written by those within the Xicano movement.

It is vital to remember that we should strive to be according to Emiliano Zapata’s Plan de Ayala “partisans of principles rather than men." For to long our community has existed as personalists – we worship the leader, the strong man, the hero. Instead of accepting the responsibility for our own free choice we fall trap to the messianic ideal a person can deliver us from our bondage as a people. We fail to realize that way of thinking is bondage itself. To the extent it is possible we must all accept the charge of messianic deliverer. And by doing so accept the necessity of choice of deciding for us the ultimate course to nationhood and liberation. How this can be accomplished is actually the question we must find ways to as separate movements working toward common goals to articulate.

The idea of free choice within our indigenous politics is found within the practice of collective action, collective decision-making and building a popular front as an umbrella for an anti-colonialist movement. The biggest obstacle in the way of an even marginally successful Xicano nationalist movement with a growing indigenous philosophy has an unclear, romanticized vision of where and how this type of struggle begins. Taiaiake Alfred in his book “Wasase – indigenous pathways of action and freedom” tells us that options like armed struggle through Guerilla warfare are impractical, “it is clear that guerrilla and terrorist strategies are futile … violent revolt is simply not an intelligent and realistic approach to confronting the injustice we face,” While Alfred’s words are important, it is also important to understand a variety of organizational methodologies that may at one time or another be appropriate for the people to try. The challenge is whether as a people or nation we have the ability to enact these different methods, even in learning about guerilla warfare as an extreme example we come to understand that it is much more guns and fighting.

For Xicanos examining the words of revolutionary guerilla fighter Mao Tse Tung along with the modern analysis of an liberation theorist like Alfred and Adams is important, it is Mao who states simply but eloquently, “without a political goal guerrilla warfare must fail” for Xicanos engaged in indigenous liberation politics this one statement should shine a bright light on the necessity of political partying building organization. The nature of guerrilla warfare or what Mao calls revolutionary war is a “protracted one” the goal of the revolutionary is not to produce a quick military decision but rather “how to avoid a military decision … give way before the determined advance of the enemy, and, like the sea, close in again as the enemy passes,” according to Mao in the beginning of a revolution there are no pitched battles – there is merely a struggle for the minds and allegiance of the people through political education.

Because of the impoverished nature of Chinese society (and maybe to some extent Chinese culture itself) Mao choose to develop his revolutionary theory focusing on the three intangible aspects of warfare: space, time and will, “the basic premise of this theory is that political mobilization may be substituted for industrial mobilization” according to Edward L. Katzenbach, Jr., who served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under President John F. Kennedy, in his influential essay on the military theories of Mao Tse Tung .

Today, within this slowly emerging indigenous Xicano movement we suffer from a sense of unrealistic impatience about our roles and the activities we should be undertaking at this point in our liberation struggle. An important lesson from Katzenbach’s analysis of Mao’s guerrilla theory that places our own movement with in a proper lens of what constitutes appropriate action at the beginning of a revolution is about timing,

Mao’s military problem was how to organize space so that it could be made to yield time. His political problem was how to organized time so that could be made to yield will, that quality which makes willingness to sacrifice the order of the day … Mao’s real military problem was not that of getting the war over with, the question to which Western military thinkers have directed the greater part of their attention, but that of keeping it going.

Space + time = will is the equation Mao used to explain his theories of protracted warfare, and one that may well serve the needs of indigenous liberation movements today. For indigenous fighters in the America’s today even a basic understanding of Mao’s military theory tell us that while we consider ourselves at war, we have not lost, “only those willing to admit defeat can be defeat.” And while it may seem to some that war can only be conducted in a specific way it is evident through reading not only Mao, but other revolutionary theorists that war is at its very basic level an attack on the force of law Benjamin and Derrida spoke of earlier. It is an attempt to reconstitute that society, or as Derrida points out “war is in fact … a violence that serves to found law.”

Authoritarian measures instituted by the colonial system i.e. courts, police, social workers perpetuate the misery around us. They have as their basis our mental relationship with the colonized mindset and the perpetuation of colonialism within our personal and public affairs. We respond as a colonized people to this type of oppressive authority as a people because it is all we have ever known and we cannot conceive of a different system because we have an incomplete understanding of our role as indigenous people in the Americas. Albert Memmi a Tunisian philosopher who wrote extensively about the conditions of both the colonized and the colonizer said, “regardless of how soon or how violently the colonized rejects his situation, he will one day begin to overthrow his unliveable existence with the whole force of his oppressed personality.” (Memmi 62-63) The greatest danger our movement faces today is falling prey to the seductive force and philosophy of defeatist assimilation whether it is overt or not.

Our current structure within the Xicano movement is conveniently set up, running and allegedly functioning all around us. We unwittingly structure many of the changes we try to institute within the context of the current system of exploitation. This colonial mindset is so ingrained in our national psyche at this point the only hope toward any significant change in the way we see the world and deal with each other would come only after it was clearly articulate how a recovery of indigenous identity and nationalism would work and then begin to order the very identity and nation we have proposed. Law and our understanding of that law and colonialism as a system must be fundamentally altered to grasp the importance and necessity of understanding the role that violence plays in founding law.

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot be citizens of the United States and continue to talk about Aztlan as if it were a real entity. If we are to be good Americans than we must halt this talk of stolen land, oppression and colonization because “History shows that serious potential for conflicts exists when people in one country begin referring to territory in a neighboring country in proprietary terms and to assert special rights and claims to that territory.” (Huntington. 4)

The decision we have before us is one of great historical importance. If we are to choose the path of nation building and pay more than lip service to the creation of a state for Xicanos and other indigenous people on this continent then it is imperative that we begin studying the methods of achieving that end.