Love the State, but Hate (Neo)Colonialism? Discussing Sacrifice Zones and (Green) Colonialism in Political Ecology

ABSTRACT Green colonialism and sacrifice areas are now popular academic topics. Demonstrating affinity between ideas of sacrifice zones, extractivism and green colonialism, this article argues that the state remains foundational to (neo)colonialism, orchestrating extractivism and sacrifice areas—‘green’ or otherwise. Rooting the idea of sacrifice areas with the American Indian Movement (AIM) leader, Russell Means, this idea to ‘love the state but hate colonialism’ within the academy not only ignores the political and material structures of the state but also divorces itself from wider autonomous and anarchist struggles. Reviewing definitions of extractivism, green colonialism, climate coloniality and territorialisation, this article identifies reoccurring features and omissions across similar terminologies. This article also highlights the shortcoming of implicitly embracing statism within political ecology and geography. Statism, the article contends, is not only the root of colonialism(s) but also connects politically, materially and ideologically to extractivism and its sacrifice zones. Advocating engagement with ecological anarchists and autonomous Indigenous theories to confront statism, the article recognises at least four political consequences by academics emphasising the ‘colonial’ over the ‘state’.