(Since this was off-topic another mod rightfully deleted it, however I've retrieved the quotes and want to continue this line of discussion here instead. Additional context: this was started by some sperg ranting about JOOOZ ruining anarchism by removing the nationalism and me being slightly inarticulate ok. context done.)
You realize there's plenty of types of anarchism that isn't LARPing "SMASH THE STATE" commie level shit, right? Specifically the 19th century proto-Anarchism writers and early American "anarchists". The Zapatista are probably the only successful example of a somewhat anarchistic/libertarian-socialist society today and they are heavily built on protecting ethnic identity and are absolutely big on community organization and consensus instead of running around smashing shit and ranting on twitter.
This type of society would not work in a metropolitan and multi-ethnic society, Zapatista territory is almost all one ethnicity and rural.
The Zapatistas were also an indigenous ethnic minority that got the short end of the stick of capitalism and colonialism. They want to govern themselves and be equal, not keep the races separate (until DA JOOOOOOZ took it over) or some autistic shit like the guy I was responding to seemed to think anarchy had to do with somehow.
edit: apologies for not being clear in my first post though, i probably should have said "you can't be that kind of nationalist and an anarchist" because it takes a strong state apparatus to keep whatever you consider degenerate at and shit.
Yes, separate from Mexico as in the government. Their beef isn't with any individual ethnic Mexican (unless that Mexican contributes to oppressing them, like say the president or a Mexican corporate leader. You can easily protect an identity and not be some kind of xenophobe. I contend that it's not impossible to achieve in a multi-ethnic region at all, but like a lot of libsoc/anarchist theorists I say it definitely needs to be a more localized area and with less centralized and hierarchical structures.I'm pretty sure they've taken the stance that they want to be completely separate from Mexico. Ethnic minority or not, like the Irish they've defined themselves by an ethnic identity and see no reason to "abolish it", and are fiercely protective of their language and culture, as they should be. Many anarchist movements in eastern Europe during the USSR's rule were also strongly based on ethnic identity and a sort of "nationalism".
He's snorting that JOOOOOZ shit hard but somewhere in that autism he did have a point about early/actually functional anarchism being completely different from how bourgie commie students seem to think it is. I have a lot of respect for the Zapatistas for not going the absolutely autistic statist routes of other Latin American countries. Subcomandante Marcos is a sperg though and kind of a real life example of "going native".