In a position paper the Brighton anarchist teapot collective writes : "For a social system based on mutual aid and voluntary co-operation..." Further it continues : "To establish a share in the general prosperity for all - the breaking down of racial, religious, national and sex barriers - to fight for the life of one Earth"

Let me concentrate on these few out of the many of the collective's words. The cited sentences, read to tribal peoples, would probably cause much non-understanding among them. Whom is it addressed to? To some few people? To anarchists? To non-anarchists? To the whole mankind?
Savage tribal peoples, such like my Hadzabe and Aeta friends would definitively object a social system, mutual aid and a voluntary co-operation with other people outside their own tribe as how you have described it. Why should they have a social system with those, who think and live differently? Why should the savage peoples give or ask for aid outside their own tribes? Who should tell them to co-operate voluntarily with strangers?

This never happened since a hundred thousand generations, because there was and is no need. This also never happened, because such a system would have destroyed the savage tribal peoples identity. Such a social system, the Brighton anarchists dream of, would cause a human world without tribes.

Is there much difference between this anarchists dream causing a tribe-less world and the present trial for a globalization which also doesn't allow tribes?

The second quotation of the anarchist teapot collective underlines the first one. How far should the mentioned general prosperity go? To everyone's car and bungalow? On whose or which expenses should this prosperity be established, if not on the most venerable part in our present world, the nature, part of which savage peoples are?

How and why try to establish general prosperity for six milliard people without fighting the scupulous trade and industy system which has caused the desasterous human overpopulation and the desire for individual and general prosperity you mentioned?

Why to break down racial barriers, which have been developed and established between the various human races over ages for good reasons? Their breakdown would irrevocably cause a total breakdown of tribal life, in particular savage tribal life. All savage peoples are racists, a necessary prerequisite for their survival and their cultural identity. But they are not greedy to go and live on other tribes´ territory.

You don´t believe? There are extreme cases such as among the savage Yanomami peoples, who would even kill a bastard baby between a Yanomami woman and an intruding white man. They would even kill the mother. And I think, no one from the outside world should have the right to judge over the Yanomami, even anarchists not.

Why to fight religious barriers? I am sure, my Hadzabe and Aeta friends would not like to have a barrier-free religious world. They already suffer from the disrespect of religious barriers by christian missionaries, and they would not like muslim missionaries acting without any barrier among them. I would not like either.

National barriers are kind of a substitute of tribal barriers to fight tribalism and to maximise obedience and exploitation world-wide. Globalization, which I assume you don't want, also looks for abolition of national barriers.

Agreed that national barriers should be pulled down. But they should replaced again by tribal barriers. Otherwise existing tribal life will have no future.

Your call for abolishment of sexual barriers amuses me. It open my thoughts for various different interpretations of various sex barriers. I for example feel deeply uncomfortably with the present barriers between the sexes. I wished there was more sexual life in our inhibited and cocked-up civilisation with almost a 100% of damaged people due to practised sex ban and suppression of sex during the sexually hottest period in life between sexual maturity and the age of 16 or even 18. This sexual Anarchy versus savage peoples?

In a position paper the Brighton anarchist teapot collective writes : "For a social system based on mutual aid and voluntary co-operation..." Further it continues : "To establish a share in the general prosperity for all - the breaking down of racial, religious, national and sex barriers - to fight for the life of one Earth"

Let me concentrate on these few out of the many of the collective's words. The cited sentences, read to tribal peoples, would probably cause much non-understanding among them. Whom is it addressed to? To some few people? To anarchists? To non-anarchists? To the whole mankind?

Savage tribal peoples, such like my Hadzabe and Aeta friends would definitively object a social system, mutual aid and a voluntary co-operation with other people outside their own tribe as how you have described it. Why should they have a social system with those, who think and live differently? Why should the savage peoples give or ask for aid outside their own tribes? Who should tell them to co-operate voluntarily with strangers?

This never happened since hundred thousand of generations, because there was and is no need. This also never happened, because such a system would have destroyed the savage tribal peoples identity. Such a social system, the Brighton anarchists dream of, would cause a human world without tribes.

Is there much difference between this anarchists dream causing a tribe-less world and the present trial for a globalization which also doesn't allow tribes?

The second quotation of the anarchist teapot collective underlines the first one. How far should the mentioned general prosperity go? To everyone's car and bungalow? On whose or which expenses should this prosperity be established, if not on the most vulnerable part in our present world, the nature, part of which savage peoples are?

How and why try to establish general prosperity for six milliard people without fighting the scupulous trade and industy system which has caused the desasterous human overpopulation and the desire for individual and general prosperity?

Why to break down racial barriers which have been developed and established between the various human races over ages. Their breakdown would irrevocably cause a total breakdown of tribal life, in particular savage tribal life. All tribal peoples are racists, a necessary prerequisite for their survival and their cultural identity.

You don´t believe? There are extreme cases such as among Yanomami, who would even kill a bastard baby among a Yanomami woman and an intruding white man. They would even kill the mother. And I think, noone from the outside world should have the right to judge over the Yanomami, even anarchists not.

Why to fight religious barriers? I am sure, my Hadzabe and Aeta friends would not like to have a barrierfree religious world. They already suffer from the disrespect of religious barriers by christian missionaries, and they would not like muslim missionaries acting without any barrier among them. I would not like either.

National barriers are kind of a substitute of tribal barriers to fight tribalism and to maximize obedience and exploitation worldwide. Globalisation also looks for abolition of national barriers. Therefore agreed that national barriers should be pulled down. But they should replaced again by tribal borders. Otherwise existing tribal life will have no future.

Your call for abolishment of sexual barriers amuses me. It open my thoughts for various different interpretations of various sex barriers. I for example feel deeply uncomfortably with the present barriers between the sexes. I wished there was more sexual life in our inhibited and cocked-up civilisation with almost a 100% of damaged people due to practised sex ban during the sexually hottest period in life between sexual maturity and the age of 16 or even 18.

This sexual suppression, also common among anarchists, leads to sublimation, such as agressivity, substitute satisfaction (alcohol, drugs,...) and deviant life (homosexuallity, lesbianism and single life).

Savages do not have and do not need such a restriction, but they have got other clear sex barriers, which are necessary for them. And you anarchists want to take these barriers away?

Finally, you want to fight for the life of ONE earth? Which capitalist and globalist would not like this? And for which life of one earth do you fight? Does your fight include the fight for Suharto´s, Habbibie´s and Clinton´s life? Tribal peoples need their own worlds, not the fashion call for one world.

You Brighton anarchists may want your words interpreted differently from how I did? Then change your words and make sure that misunderstanding of what you want to say does not happen. Say clearly, what you want, without the need for the reader to an exegesis of your words .

I just tried to show you that you seem not to worry about tribal peoples and in particular savages. It seems to me that you do not understand their life and their needs. I assume that you don´t like them to survive. If not so, I would be happy to get your request for a further discussion between us about tribal savage peoples and the need to support their struggle for survival.
Note: Hartmut Heller
FdN Germany
April 1998