Subject: M-I: indigenous peoples Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 10:45:40 -0500 (EST) From: "hoov" <hoov-AT-freenet.tlh.fl.us> below is reposting of comments I sent to m-i in January...I think they are apropos re: current threads on "indigenismo"...Michael Hoover > indigenous people are the descendents of the (original?) inhabitants of > lands that today form the territories of nation-states...many of these > lands were taken and settled by force...so indigenes are "marked" not > only as aboriginal & culturally distinct, but as colonized... > > the key claim for most indigenous people is land...are claims to any > territory retained & to winning back areas lost legitimate?...if so, > how/where do indigenes make them?...courts which administer alien laws > & are usually partial to the dominant culture?...political > representation which requires particular kinds of resources?... > withdrawal of labor which represents a limited economic threat?... > soliciting "sympathy" for their plight among the general populace?... > attempting to embarrass & shame state & wealth makers? > > if indigenous peoples' claims are legitimate, definitional shifts > must occur...important conceptual questions cannot be the domain of > state/wealth makers (colonizers) because their interests are state/ > corporate control over all that nation-state borders enclose - > including mineral commodities and other development resources on > indigene lands...the political language involved must change in ways > that acknowledge/respect rights to self-definition & self- > identification...such rights work to preserve culture, language & > customary law - a people losing its language is condemned to death... > but are state constraints too severe to expect indigenous peoples' > causes to gain significance?...and if state/wealth makers cannot > successfully obliterate them (culturally and/or physically), can they > control them by fetishizing them and making curiousities out of them?... > > rights talk - for which there is now a fairly well-developed language > ranging from the Convention on the Protection of Indigenous & Tribal > Peoples to the Universal Declaration on Indigenous Rights - itself > is problematic...questions about human rights doctrine: who is it for > and what does it say?...no external authority exists to sanction such > rights...certain customs/traditions in indigenous cultures violate > human rights... > > contrary to conventional expectations about the assimilationist effects > of modernization and changing modes of production, indigenous peoples > remain...ironically, state/wealth makers have contributed to this as > indigenes have become aware of their own collective identity in the > face of the one (fill in name of nation-state) they are told to have... --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005