Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
UN Adopts Historic Statement on Native Rights
UNITED NATIONS - Despite strong objections from the United States and some of its allies, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution Thursday calling for the recognition of the world's 370 million indigenous peoples' right to self-determination and control over their lands and resources. The adoption of the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples comes after 22 years of diplomatic negotiations at the United Nations involving its member states, international civil society groups, and representatives of the world's aboriginal communities.
An overwhelming majority of UN member countries endorsed the Declaration, with 143 voting in favor, 4 against, and 11 abstaining.
The United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand stood alone in voting against the resolution. The nations that neither supported nor objected were Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russia, Samoa, and Ukraine.
"It's a triumph for indigenous peoples around the world," said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon after the General Assembly vote. "This marks a historic moment when member states and indigenous peoples have reconciled with their painful histories."
In her comments, General Assembly President Haya Al Khalifa described the outcome of the vote as a "major step forward towards the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all."
Pleased with the General Assembly's decision, indigenous leaders told OneWorld they wanted the declaration to be adopted by consensus, but since certain countries remained unwilling to recognize their rights until the end, a majority vote was the only possible option left.
"If a few states do not accept the declaration, then it would be a reflection on them rather than the document," said Les Malezer, an aboriginal leader from Australia, before the resolution was presented to the General Assembly.
Before the vote many indigenous leaders accused the United States and Canada of pressuring economically weak and vulnerable nations to reject calls for the Declaration's adoption. Initially, some African countries were also reluctant to vote in favor, but later changed their position after the indigenous leadership accepted their demand to introduce certain amendments in the text.
The Declaration emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their institutions, cultures, and traditions and pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations.
It also calls for recognition of the indigenous peoples' right to self-determination, a principle fully recognized by the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, but deemed controversial by the United States and some of its allies who fear that it could undermine their rights to rule over all their current territory.
In return for their support, the African countries wanted the declaration to mention that it does not encourage any actions that would undermine the "territorial integrity" or "political unity" of sovereign states.
Though the African viewpoint was incorporated into the final version, the Declaration remains assertive of indigenous peoples' right to self-determination and control over their land and resources.
"It is subject to interpretation, but we can work with this," Malezer said last week.
Thursday, Malezer and his colleagues in the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues described the world body's decision as "a major victory."
"The 13th of September 2007 will be remembered as an international human rights day for the indigenous peoples of the world," said Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, chairperson of the Permanent Forum, in an emotional tone filled with joy.
International civil society groups working for the rights of indigenous peoples also expressed extreme pleasure with Thursday's vote.
"We are really very happy and thrilled to hear about the adoption of the Declaration," said Botswana Bushman Jumanda Gakelebone of First People of the Kalahari, who works with the independent advocacy group Survival International.
"It recognizes that governments can no longer treat us as second-class citizens, and it gives protection to tribal peoples so that they will not be thrown off their lands like we were," Gakelebone added in a statement.
Survival's director Stephen Corry said he hoped the declaration would raise international standards in the same way the Universal Declaration of Human Rights did nearly 60 years ago.
"It sets a benchmark by which the treatment of tribal and indigenous peoples can be judged, and we hope it will usher in an era in which abuse of their rights is no longer tolerated," he added.
Vivian Stromberg, executive director of the New York-based rights group MADRE, said Thursday that the Declaration's passage "will signal a major shift in the landscape of international human rights law, in which the collective rights of indigenous peoples will finally be recognized and defended."
At the UN, indigenous leaders, however, cautioned against a possible gap between rhetoric and effective implementation of the Declaration.
"It will be the test of commitment of states and the whole international community to protect, respect, and fulfill indigenous peoples' collective and individual human rights," Tauli-Corpuz said.
"I call on governments, the UN system, indigenous peoples, and civil society at large to rise to the historic task before us and make the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples a living document for the common future of humanity," she said in a statement.
Though pleased with the General Assembly's decision, some indigenous leaders seemed unhappy that the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand did not accept the Declaration.
"Canada has shown its true colors on our human rights," Arthur Manuel, a leader of Canada's indigenous peoples, told OneWorld.
Those in opposition have said the Declaration is "flawed," mainly because of its strong emphasis on the right to indigenous self-determination and full control over lands and resources. In their view, these clauses would hinder economic development efforts and undermine so-called "established democratic norms."
The United States has also refused to sign on to a UN treaty on biological diversity, which calls for a "fair and equitable" sharing of the benefits derived from indigenous lands by commercial enterprises.
Meanwhile, threats to indigenous lands and resources persist, say rights activists, in the form of mining, logging, toxic contamination, privatization, large-scale development projects, and the use of genetically modified seeds.
"The entire wealth of the United States, Canada, and other so-called modern states is built on the poverty and human rights violations of their indigenous peoples," said Manuel. "The international community needs to understand how hypocritical Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States are."
Recent scientific studies have repeatedly warned of devastating consequences for indigenous communities in particular as changing climates are expected to cause more floods, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events across the world.
The United States and Australia have taken particular criticism also for their refusal to join the majority of the world's nations in efforts to combat climate change.
© 2007 OneWorld.net
64 Comments so far
Show AllFree Leonard Peltier!!! In the US, the lamestream media doesn't talk about him. But when I travel to Europe, say the words, Leonard Peltier, and they know who you are talking about. Leonard Peltier has served over three decades for a crime he didn't commit, unless one think that standing up to US terror against first nation people is a crime.
http://www.freepeltier.org/
"The United States has also refused to sign on to a UN treaty on biological diversity, which calls for a "fair and equitable" sharing of the benefits derived from indigenous lands by commercial enterprises."
"Fair and equitable"?
These are values and qualities displayed by humans who have a conscience. Trying to locate them among U.S. politicians it's like trying to find a needle in a hay stack.
Another shameful chapter in American history. This country has lost every bit of moral authority it once had.
The indigenous have steadily, unwaveringly, and enduringly kept the hope alive, waiting for the rest of the world, which calls us third world, to catch up. Although the U.S. Administration and members of Congress and the Senate, still foolishly court the extreme right, the heart of the U.S. is with us. Follow your heart.
We are a land run by criminals. There is but one solution - demand / reclaim the power of the people.
The silence is sickening; the ignorance is omnipresent; the future is simply in jeopardy.
Don't just read these posts - get off your asses and do something! If we wait any longer it will be too late.
As a Canadian citizen, I am appalled at Canada's lack of support for this declaration. It is more proof that Canada is following in the footsteps of the USA as a warmongering, profiteering imperialist nation. We always welcomed the world's disadvantaged. Now, we cannot even welcome our own native peoples in their own lands. Canada's action is pathetic. If Canada continues to support US foreign policy, I will be ashamed to be Canadian.
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and United States of A - the bastard children of blighty.
Shame on Canada. Shame on Canadians everywhere.
Welcome Turtle Islanders.
So the country bringing "freedom" to other countries votes against indigenous peoples having any---because as noted above, "prosperity" depends on conquering and pillaging them. How naked the Emperor is becoming! The UN document is "flawed," they say (never a criterion before, was it?): it might disrupt established processes for looting and destroying other peoples' homes. Welcome to the human planet that's been bleeding since Europe found the other side of the world...May the U.S. and the other dinosaurs be dragged into more such sunlight!
" recognition of the world's 370 million indigenous peoples' right to self-determination and control over their lands and resources." so sweet these words.
I bet this gets virtually zero coverage by the US media, especially television news. It will be deemed unimportant when the truth is that the USA's position on the matter is scandalous.
Yet again another tragic reaffirmation about our government's callous attitude towards indigenous peoples. Good for the UN to step forward! I agree with Dana Garrett. I too will bet that this gets little or no coverage by the MSM because they are too chickenshit to recognize the truth and divorce themselves from the Bush Administration!
The UN charter was violated by the US invasion of Iraq - did the UN take action? No. (To argue that Iraq was about to invade us, and that we had to take pre-emptive action is the height of absurdity). So what if this Declaration of Rights is utterly ignored - will the UN take action? Of course not. Until the UN enforces its own anti-war charter, everthing it says is so much BS. Having refused to declare the invasion of Iraq illegal, the UN is just another war-enabling, mass murder-complicit institution good for nothing but the generation of hot air.
This article is riddled with sillyness. Don't get me wrong. I favor reconciliation and believe that we are still far, far, far from a universal equality, in the U.S., Canada, or anywhere in the world. Human rights is what the focus should be (though that's not quite as sexy as indigenous rights). However, for many Common Dreams readers, the above will be simplified into some variation of self-loathing or other hate. The discussion ought to be about how to make sure all children get an equal start in health, love, and education. But the article stinks of hate.
Aside is the question of, in the modern world, what is it to be indigenous? I am indigenous to a certain place ...everybody is. Are the local resources thus MINE? The concept is outdated and silly. It focuses on 19th-20th century racism. We must know and acknowledge our history (and the historical inequalities still present), but there's no need to re-awaken old nationalisms. The world of the future is one nation. Children do not need a flag ...they need love, respect, health and education! I met an "indigenous" young man who said he pitied me for having no culture (me being a Euro-Yankee). His misunderstanding of what the concept of culture even is ...it was heartbreaking. Such misunderstandings abound, and I'm afraid many of the other commentors (who I so often agree with) are going to spit the bizarro semi-fascist party line like acid on this one. Too bad. We CAN achieve human rights without dividing and catagorizing ourselves up into infinity (and in fact, I think it's the only way). Tribalisms are counter-productive.
The following line from above reminds me of the French claiming Louisiana while virtually none of the inhabitants knew what France was: "This marks a historic moment when member states and indigenous peoples have reconciled with their painful histories." How many young kids on the reservations in South Dakota even know about this event (or care)? The money for the pagentry should have gone to an after school program ...anywhere.
The only surprise to me was that Australia did not vote against it.
Over the last couple of years of watching the CBC, Canadian propaganda has been incredibly apparent to me, and last night we were exposed to another bit of it: the news anchor had to feign surprise that Canada did not sign this UN declaration. Well, it is not a goddam surprise. Canada has been oppressing First Nations for 400 years!
The significance of this event did not hit me fully until I read the actual text. This is fabulous. And respectful. No wonder the US government voted against, never failing to disappoint progressives. Here is a link to the English version of the UNDRIP:
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N07/498/30/PDF/N0749830.pdf?OpenElement
A silly statemnet by Stilba when looking at the legal and political realities in Canada, since large portions of Canada were never ceded by treaty and the Supreme Court has recognized inherent First Nations title to the land as well as aboriginal rights.
Making generalizations and not specifying on the conditions of polities on issues which have developed decades of law and precedent is the ultimate foolishness.
jobson: "Making generalizations and not specifying on the conditions of polities on issues which have developed decades of law and precedent is the ultimate foolishness."
Of course, you're correct, but consider the medium. Lots of ultimate foolishness going around.
The same thing you mention briefly (unceded lands in Canada) goes for parts of the U.S. Do the "indigenous" (and what qualifies as that? ...blood quantum?) have a chance at ever getting an independent nation in the heart of the U.S.? No. Do I (that other sort of indigenous) have a chance of getting my home state ceded/independent from a union that's gone batty? No. Pipedreams, at least in the foreseeable future. So, what are we talking about? Territory or human rights? Are the two necessarily conjoined? My own view is that they're not. Yes, these are generalizations, but again, consider the medium. Nobody here's drawing up a civil code ...just chatting.
Royal Proclamation of 1763
I know this is going to come up.... When the United States violently ceded from the British Empire, it was, in part, rejecting the Empire's Royal Proclamation of 1763 which compelled the signing of treaties with North American Indians.
This Proclamation is part of Canadian law, and so Canada was oblidged to sign treaties with First Nations; however, in some parts of Canada (namely, British Columbia) colonial administrators simply lied to their bosses that treaties had been signed.
In the United States this legal situation does not exist. Plantation owners and slave dealers (ie., the Founding Fathers) rejected the Royal Proclamation and instead by the doctrine of Manifest Destiny waged genocide against "American Indians." Hollywood propagandizes this genocide and ethnic cleansing as the Wild West.
We didn't have such a Wild West in Canada. Instead it was a slow and deliberate smoothering with germ warfare (ie, smallpox), The Red River Rebellion, the Battle of Batoche and the administration of the Indian Act which continues to be administered to this day. However, guess what? Colonialism wasn't successful: First Nations are still here and readily expose the lie that Western capitalist countries respect the rule of law.
Stilba, it is apparent you are looking at this from the point of view of an American lens.
It is possible that new nations will be carved out of Canada. Quebec is an obvious example. But lets look at the 1920s in Quebec, when Iran and Holland recognized the Mohawk Nation as an independent nation.
For the American government officials who specialize in promoting ethnic insurrections and succession movements throughout the world against states it wishes to undermine (ie, Venezuela, Iran, China), it very possible that new nations could be carved out of it. Further, if the US wanted to undermine Canada, and carve the Mohawk Nation out of Canada, it could probably do so. It is not a pipedream, but rather a common tactic where one state subverts another.
Regarding indigenous, consider this. During the 1800s in Guangdong Province in China, Hakka settlers moved into abandonned Yue coastal communities. These communities had been abandonned since Manchurian leaders in Beijing had passed a law prohibiting settlement along the coast so as to avoid incursions by Ming rebels from the island of Taiwan.
The Yue fought back for their villages though which lead to over 1 million dead and some of the first arrivals of Chinese immigrants to the US and Canada. However, what do Chinese history books call this war? The Bendi-Kejia War which translates as the "Native-Visitor War".
Dealing with the concept of indigenous in Mandarin is very problematic since the term used is often "native" which is often used by new colonizers who have decided themselves that they are the new natives, such as Chinese Mainlanders who came to Taiwan in the 1940s.
jobson: I agree that anything, even a pipedream, is possible (I mean, who would have thought America would ever repeat Vietnam! ...and here we are!) You're right, I probably am American-izing the Canadian situation. Perhaps I don't understand it well enough. That admitted, I don't think we're going to see any new nations on the North American continent any time soon. Maybe another Iqualiut, which makes sense, but not full independence. The relationship between Canada and its citizenry may be different than that in the U.S., but all nations tend to behave the same when it comes to their territory. Better to focus on what is attainable (health, education). Gandhi said something along the lines of "Sanitation is more important than independence."
Thank you George Bush, Stephen Harper, John Howard, and Helen Clark. I am currently teaching an Honours course called "The Gender of Whiteness." The four of you will make an excellent term paper topic, as you stand as the contemporary embodiment of 700 years of self-serving white hegemony.
It is a tragic irony that just as aboriginal numbers are returning to a significant level in these four nations that democracy -- you know, that system in which numbers among the electorate count -- is all but obsolete.
zoya: The vast majority of "Whiteness" (whatever that is) of the last 700 years has been an impoverished peasantry, every bit as victimized by the likes of the empowered 2% (still overwhelmingly white, but with more exceptions each year). Just as people living in North American regions were pushed out, or killed, or dispossessed, so were the ancestors of most of the "Whiteness" to which you're referring at various points in history. Some evils more recent then the others, but all the same evil. Is it worse when a White imperialist dispossesses peasant Teutons or hunter-gatherer Mandans? This isn't to equate the CURRENT situation between whites (in general) to Native Americans (in general) ...we all know there's no comparison! But the history's complex, not a hyperbole, and G. W. Bush does not equal 98% of "Whiteness." You talk about "numbers returning to a significant level." Pure 19th century talk. Racism and tribalism. The world's getting too small for that.
Damn..I'm embarrased for Canada...another Steven Harper conservative stand against justice.
the stupidity is, that under Canadian Law, native people already have an element of independance, operating similar to the Municipal level of government, and only responsible to the Federal level, not the Provincial level
Backing this declaration would not have hurt Canada at all, rejecting it has.
hey, does this mean the USA colonizers have to leave Iraq to the indigenous Iraqis?
What about the theory that the north american "indians" are themselves colonizers via the Bearing land bridge of an earlier North American civilization?
should control of North America revert to the true indigenous peoples, the Neadrethals?
If you follow this train of logic back to its natural conclusion, all countries of the world will have to turn control of their governments back to all our common ancestors, the apes.(of if you are a creationist, the dirt from which Adam was created)
Its good to see the the USA is already ahead of the curve in this regard. They already have both dirt bags and apes well represented in all their governing bodies.
America the Arrogant
To all here that realize what an utter disaster has befallen the United States, particularly anyone who is online from another nation, please, PLEASE, go to this link and sign this petition.
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/unsanam2
I swear to you that, if I can get enough signatures and if I am not disappeared by DHS, I will hand deliver it to the United Nations.
Nothing we do as citizens will stop the demented assault by this country on the rest of the world. Even if the Democrats take over in 08 they will simply pick up where the Republicans left off. Massive demonstrations in American streets will give Bush the excuse he's looking for to invoke his royal decree; The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007, would place all governmental power in the hands of the President and effectively abolish the checks and balances in the Constitution. I'm sure he's just chafing at the bit to take a test drive as Supreme Leader and to put all his nice detention centers to good use.
Patriotic Americans, please swallow your pride and join me in asking for help from the rest of the world. They have as much to loose as we do.
Why shouldn't new nations emerge within a larger national territory? There's nothing inherently sacred about a nation's territory. To think otherwise is to indulge in a nationalistic piety.
Furthermore, the historical record is unambiguous on this matter. No nation's boundaries endure through time. To think that the USA's or some other nation's boundaries will always remain inviolate is to daydream. This act by the UN is just another manifestation of the kinds national and territorial shifts that have occurred throughout history, only this holds out the promise that the shifts can occur through agreement and without bloodshed in some, hopefully many, cases.
_______________
"That admitted, I don't think we're going to see any new nations on the North American continent any time soon. Maybe another Iqualiut, which makes sense, but not full independence. The relationship between Canada and its citizenry may be different than that in the U.S., but all nations tend to behave the same when it comes to their territory."
Does anyone else think it's funny that the u.s.,canada, australia, and New Zealand are former british colonies? and british enough so they are english speaking countries still? what might this mean?
Dana Garrett: Right, nations have always changed, but I said "any time soon." Do you believe, for example, that Americans (as they are at present) are about to let any little piece of their country go? They'd sooner bomb the territory in question to cinders and plant a flag atop the ash. Like you, I also feel that a nation's territory is not sacred. That's why it puzzles me that anybody would want to create more nations. Look at Europe. Hundreds of years (and millions of men) wasted dividing and re-dividing the land, only to end up coming to the European Union.
The looney bin appears to be full here.
Indigenous? I wonder what that means... and according to whose definition. Human life is believed to have begun in northern Africa at some point not very long ago. Does that mean that I, as a a decendent of that first homo sapien, have a claim on a piece of land & underground resources in Mesopatamia? As I understand it, that's an oil-rich region, so maybe I'll make out OK. Didn't Native Americans wander onto the North American continent from Asia? If that's the case, then I guess there are no humans that have a claim on North America.
As a liberal-leaning person, I can understand how difficult it is to swallow the poison pill of our current U.S. leadership, but all of you people who are posting here are as guilty as the next person of living within the status quo. Certainly the Native Americans suffered for this, but what do you propose we do? Many tribes are getting extremely rich through casinos. Maybe they should share the wealth a bit among the other tribes that have remained impoverished.
This is just like the ridiculous "reparations" argument put forward by members of the African American community a few years ago. There is nothing practical about it. What's done is done. You can't take it back by forcing other people from their homes.
There's a book out right now by Steve Perry that I recommend folks pick up and read, titled: Man Up, Nobody Is Coming To Save Us.
http://www.amazon.com/Man-Up-Nobody-Coming-Save/dp/0970892926
"Does anyone else think it's funny that the u.s.,canada, australia, and New Zealand are former british colonies? and british enough so they are english speaking countries still? what might this mean?"
abuelito, as a student of colonialism in the Americas, I believe that religion is the key to your puzzlement. The catholic countries, Spain, Portugal, and France had a very different attitude toward indigenous populations, and slaves as well. They were viewed more as children needing to be shown the way. Catholicism is more forgiving in many ways, and open to absorbing new cultures.
The British Calvinists, and other protestants, on the other hand, held much more deeply racist views. Besides seeing other races as essentially non-human, they had this lens of the protestant work ethic, through which they viewed the "lazy savages" as worthless. They also have this ideological thing about conquering nature, which I believe is much more dogmatic than that held by their catholic counterparts. There are probably other cultural difference also which make the English-speaking countries such racist imperialists.
I am not saying that the catholics are any less brutal and blind in their paternalism, they just have a different world view. (By the way, I am a non-christian.)
How is it that there are only 370 million "indigenous" people in a world of 6 billion? I would like to see definition. Are the Jews of Arabia included, for instance?
"the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution Thursday calling for the recognition of the world's 370 million indigenous peoples' right to self-determination and control over their lands and resources." This may sound ridiculous, but isn't it all their land. I mean in the case of North America anyone of not of Native American decent is in violation of this charter. What about Iraq?? Aren't the Iraqis as indigenous to their land which is being stolen "RIGHT NOW!!!!" Why won't the powerful UN tell America to GET OUT and stop commiting mass genocide of an indigenous race????????????????????????
Canada only supports it when it benefits their bottom line. I.e.--the fur industry, whaling, sealing etc.
If such an agreement as this means we are supposed to turn a blind eye to the oppression committed by so called indigenous people against others then I do not support it.
Hunting and fishing "rights" is a repugnant term. And hypocritical. Because on one hand such a group wants to be protected from discrimination by non natives, and yet exempt from being held to the same standard. You cant say you embrace some violent unjust traditions, but reject others(i.e. the Makah whaling tribe wanting whaling rights but not slavery rights-since they also kept human slaves).
polar bears and seals are truly the indigenous tribes of the North. They dont need artifical means in order to stay warm and survive. They are born with all the equipment they need.
Anyway such a declaration is ridiculous as the world faces global ecological disaster. Just a piece of tree.
PS
Canadians should be ashamed to be Canadian for many reasons besides this. Canada's annual slaughter of seal pups with a spiked club by unwashed Newfoundland fishermen who destroyed the Eastern fish populations(and in typical human fashion BLAMED the seals), to cloth Russian prostitutes and medicate China's massive impotency problem(yeah I know, it was news to me too).
Could the Americans who are saying that a new nation on North America could not happen soon please read up on Canadian historical events of the last couple of decades. In particular, look up the separatist referendum of 1995 where the margin was less than 1% between the yes and no sides for the separation of Quebec from Canada.
I know it is hard for Americans to understand Iraqi history let alone Canadian. I even had linguistics professors in the States who knew not even the basic issues about Quebec. They might edit articles on Canadian bilingualism, but wouldn't know the basics about politics in Quebec.
If they do not even know basic facts like the 1995 Referendum in Quebec, how can you expect them to know about the basic history of Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc...
Native people want to be protected from non-natives? Isn't it about self-determination?
jobson: "Could the Americans who are saying that a new nation on North America could not happen soon please read up on Canadian historical events of the last couple of decades. In particular, look up the separatist referendum of 1995 where the margin was less than 1% between the yes and no sides for the separation of Quebec from Canada."
In the early 1990s, I followed it closely and kind of thought it would happen. Many Yanks I know were ambiguous in their feeling towards it, but far from disinterested. But it didn't happen, and Bloc Quebecois has only lost support for that since then. I don't see another referendum on Quebec's independence any time soon, even if the Bloc keeps talking about it - what would come of the Conservative-shared majority? Other than Quebec, what else is there? Nothing.
umm, the Bloc is not the party which decides if the referendum will be held. The Bloc is a federal party. Canada has 4 major federal parties with seats: the Liberals, the Conservatives, the New Democrats, and the Bloc Quebecois.
In Quebec, there are 3 major parties with seats: the Liberals, Parti Quebecois and Action Democratique (which is new and in power).
Separatist referendums have been held by the Parti Quebecois in 1980 and 1995 in Quebec.
The Mohawk Nation was recognized as an idependent nation separate from Canada by Iran and Holland as members of the League of Nations after WWI.
Notwithstanding the prevailing sociopathic horror, I'm confident that there's something about the human character in most people that has a strong psychic need for ethics and morality.
In other words, pure profit and raw worldly power can never be the "organizing principle of society". Isn't ultimately "Justice" the organizing principle of society? People may differ as to what Justice is and may lie about Justice, but the axis upon which human development turns is always Justice, and without Justice (however it is defined) societies start to fall apart, as our's now is.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_financial_paradoxes_of_globalization
One common denominator of the 4 english speaking countries is MURDOCH. As an Australian I apologise to the world for this racist, corporate, world raping excuse for a human being.
Which nations regularly disregard UN resolutions? you got it.......US, UK and Israel...the true Axis of EVIL. Too bad Canada are part of this too. Canada has a history of abusing the natives. Check out the medical experiments and murders of native children in the residence schools these native children were forced into. It's called the Canadian Holocaust! What do you think of Canada now?
Standard anti-indian organization arguements from canuckchuck. BC FIRE spread those messages. Then the organizer of BC FIRE, Martyn Brown, became chief of staff in the right-wing Liberal Party government. *yawn*
This UN has collectively added new vista to the recognition of human rights in addition to the earlier declaration of human rights over six decades past. From the Bushman Kalahari in Botswana to the Ogoni People of the Niger Delta of Nigeria. September 13, in my view is another celebrated date for the Ogoni people to remember Ken Saro Wiwa who was brutally executed in the course of seeking the indigenous rights of Ogoni people; an act that will be endorsed by 43 namtions majority in the United Nations many years after. This piece of declaration no doubt will strenghten the desire of the peoples of Nigeria regarding the review of the Land use Act and other mindless legislation that violates the people right to enjoy their freely given property.
--Adesina. Nigeria
WOLVES WITHIN
An old Grandfather said to his grandson,
who came to him with anger at a friend who had
done him an injustice, Let me tell you a story.
I too, at times have felt a great hate for
those who have taken so much with no sorrow for
what they do.
But hate wears you down, and it does not hurt
your enemy. It is like taking poison and wishing
your enemy would die.
I have struggled with these feelings many times.
He continued, It is as if there are two wolves
inside me: one is good and does no harm.
He lives in harmony with all around him and does
not take offense when no offense was intended.
He will only fight when it is right to do so and
in the right way.
But
the other wolf,
Ah!
He is full of anger. The littlest thing will
send him into a fit of temper.
He fights everyone all the time for no reason.
He cannot think because his anger and hate are so great.
It is a helpless anger, for his anger will change nothing.
Sometimes it is hard to live with these two wolves
inside me, for both of them try to dominate my spirit.
The boy looked intently into his Grandfather's eye's
and asked, Which one wins Grandfather?
The Grandfather smiled and quietly said
"THE ONE I FEED"
Stilba
The young kids in South Dakota have a representative at the United Nations, and it isn't John Bolton.
Shame on Canada! And shame on the entire human race. Here it is, the 21st century, and we still argue whether or not to grant humans their rights, based on the colour of their skin. Times like these I am ashamed of being a Canadian.
Its times like these you should be proud of who you are. I'm american. I live here on this land. These political facist and liars dont reflect me.
"This is just like the ridiculous "reparations" argument put forward by members of the African American community a few years ago. There is nothing practical about it. What's done is done. You can't take it back by forcing other people from their homes."
I don't think it is ridiculous and actually support the idea of reparations.
However, I am somewhat confused by this article and statement myself. Would it mean as others have stated that there would be new nations formed in North America? Would Native Americans be given certain states as the NOI proposes be done with for African Americans in terms of reparations?
Or would it just mean that say that Native American groups could say, stop a mall from being built on an ancient burial ground? Or stop other things that they feel would be harmful to the land?
It IS a little vague.
To be honest with you, I am not sure I would have a problem with certain groups getting their own chunk of the continent. My only concern is that certain people in high places might want African and Native Americans all in one place for nefarious purposes.
Hey, if they want my land, I'll move. Although I agree with at least some of what he says it's not about "self-loathing" for me as Stilba put it. It's not really my land anyway you look at it.
There are times where I have toyed with the idea of going back to Poland or Ireland or Hungary or Germany. I'm a mutt of sorts, so perhaps I'd throw a dart at a map. :) Or move around?