This was a good one.

• What seems to be the main point of this work? What question is the author trying to answer?

The book is about Indigenous liberation, but throughout this Part there are lots of references to ‘relatives’ and ‘distant kin’, so the target audience goes beyond Indigenous nations in the part of Turtle Island occupied by the US. The writers do not see indigenous peoples as separate to others in the global south, but connect their struggles.

There is also some mention of poverty, which gives the impression that The Red Nation would work with poor settlers, although this is not framed as the major alliance, just because it seems more dispersed than that. Meaning, Part I proposes several ideas for liberation, and seems to ask that others do what they can.

The book is a manifesto but it does not say ‘You must do this and operate under our banner’; it says, ‘These are the problems, these are the solutions, tackle some or all of them and work with us to fix the world’. And by fix the world, they mean overthrow capitalism.

The authors (I assume this was jointly written) set up five ways of ‘divesting’. This is an unusual but appropriate word for what they’re talking about. And these five ‘Areas’ could be seen as five pillars of US imperialism. These are the five ways that the US maintains it’s position at home and abroad and continues to oppress Indigenous nations.

The narrative puts the settler treatment of Indigenous nations in global historical context. So the expansion of 13 colonies west towards California and South to modern Mexico is explained as a trial of tactics that the US has used everywhere, from Afghanistan to Guam to Iraq. The struggle of the victims is the same struggle.

The five areas for divestment are:

1. Defund police, immigration and customs enforcement, customs and border protection, and child protective services
2. End bordertown violence
3. Abolish incarceration (prisons, juvenile detention facilities, jails, border security)
4. End occupation everywhere
5. Abolish Imperial borders

Each of these sections includes some harrowing facts, calls to solidarity, and some practical steps. They do not lay out the practicalities of how to do so, but there are several calls to ‘organize’. Helpfully for interested readers, the sections tell you what the authors think you should be organising for.

The end of the final sentence of Part I is memorable:

no one is illegal in stolen land.

• What have they missed? Are they wrong about anything?

Similar to the Communist Manifesto, this isn’t heavy on the theory. Unlike a field guide, it does not present the detail of how to achieve what the authors want. Although I quite like theory, and while some organisations could really do with practical step-by-step guidance, I don’t think the book is ‘missing’ this kind of text. Because it achieves what I think it’s trying to be, a rallying call for anti-imperialist action.

On that issue, it’s on point. Because it coherently joins the dots between lots of different struggles – which likely already have mass support even from liberals – and shows how achieving these is (a) necessarily political, and (b) crucial to save the planet from climate change.

As it’s ‘missing’ things that Marxists are used to and kind of expect (remember Debray criticising Trotskyists), the book probably has a mass appeal. The authors clearly have their finger on the pulse of the oppressed.

• Did anything surprise you?

I’m unsure what ‘two spirited’ peoples means. This is in the context of LGBT, which becomes LGBTQ2+.

This relates to ‘surprising’ only because these terms are used as if readers will accept the same assumptions, that LGBTQ2+ people must and will be part of the struggle for Indigenous liberation. There’s no room to question it. Either we’re all getting free or nobody is.

But the text doesn’t make too much of it. By which I mean, the authors just make their points as if there will be no room for debate or questioning. As it should be.

Maybe it’s the kind of things I read, like older theory, where the language is outdated, and newer works where LGBTQ2+ would either be the explicit focus or not mentioned at all. But often when I come across gender and sexuality, the idea is often ‘unpacked’, implying either a defensive or an explanatory stance first, before the main argument can proceed. The Red Deal just gets on with the argument, no apology necessary. It’s good stuff.

• Is this work applicable outside of the U$?

The authors explicitly state how the Indigenous struggle for liberation is the same struggle that all colonised peoples face. One of the demands, for example, is:

Restore to developing countries the atmospheric space that is occupied by greenhouse gas emissions.

Revolutionary direct action doesn’t get much more holistic than that. Not only is this supposed to be applied outside the US, it even transcends most Western notions of ‘colonisation’ that I’m familiar with.

Importantly, this is framed as something that must be fought for within the US. It’s interesting to learn that The Red Nation has taken upon itself the task asked of Anglo-Europeans, to stop criticising other countries and make changes that after closer to home that affect those other countries. Solidarity par excellence.

• Is this really a “nonessential” or would it be good for any communist to read it?

It’s more essential than I would have thought before reading it.

Could even be proposed as essential radicalising material for the right kind of liberal.

Apologies for the late post! Jerboa still isn’t working for me, and things have made it tough to finish this first bit in time.

I read the pdf (Part One: End the Occupation), as my book is still on the way. There’s a lot that I think is good here, but some things that confused and frustrated me. I think I see where the author’s going, and mostly agree with it.

Who is the Red Nation:

This bit of the pdf covers who the authors are. They state that their areas of struggle are indigeneity, liberation, resistance, and coalition. The quote “like our hearts, our politics are down and to the left” is a little corny, but I didn’t see that sentiment show anywhere else.

They also discuss their 10-point program here. I think this program is probably a great entrypoint for a sympathetic liberal, but I found it a little frustrating. I very much think the authors are “hiding their power levels” here as they have some more liberal/reformist demands, but end with demanding an “end to capitalism-colonialism”.

What is the Red Deal:

This section lionizes AOC and the Green New Deal a bit, but I guess that makes sense if their target audience is sympathetic to that. They assert that they’re not calling for a “Red New Deal” but for the old deal to be respected, regarding treaty rights and more.

I’m confused by the section “From Theory to Action” where they talk about it being necessary to struggle for reforms, but also assert that voting is ineffective. They mention a need to fight for “non-reformist reforms”, and I don’t really understand it. It echoes the points from Gloria La Riva’s presidential run, but I don’t think I understood it there either. If reform is ineffective, why fight for it? Is it just to show the public that the capitalists won’t enact popular reforms? It feels like fighting for reforms is sort of a revolutionary dead-end, but maybe there’s more I need to learn there.

Divest: End the Occupation

This section covers specific areas that are priority targets for “divestment” as they cause the most harm to the planet and humans. They include areas like “defund the policy”, “end border town violence”, “abolish incarceration”, “abolish U$ occupation everywhere” and “abolish imperial borders”.

I’m not sure if there’s disagreement in a group of authors, or if they’re trying to lighten up their actual points for a non-communist audience. The bits on respecting treaty rights seem to contradict an end to global capitalism and imperialism which they call for. If we’re calling for the downfall of the U$ (and it seems like, obliquely, they are) why respect treaties the treaty writers never respected?

I very much like how these areas are formatted with a clear section on each on “what needs our urgent attention” and “what can you do about it”. I think there’s a lot to learn here for writing succinct calls to action in the modern age.

All-in-all there’s a lot to think about in this. I don’t think the authors are necessarily wrong about anything, but there’s plenty that seems contradictory to me or that I don’t understand as fitting together. I’m excited to get the full book to find out more!

I do think any U$ communist should read material like this, maybe even including this. Decolonization seems like it is and will be important.

I’m looking forward to the next section!