EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Urged to Sign Native Rights Declaration
UNITED NATIONS - The United States is considering whether to endorse a major U.N. General Assembly resolution calling for the recognition of the rights of the world's 370 million indigenous peoples over their lands and resources.
Brazilian Indians from the Yawalapiti tribe in Xingu Reserve attend a celebration of Indians Day at the Memorial dos Povos Indigenas (Indigenous People Memorial) in Brasilia April 19, 2009. (REUTERS/Roberto Jayme) "The position on [this issue] is under review," Patrick Ventrell, spokesperson for the U.S. mission to the U.N., told IPS about the Barack Obama administration's stance on the non-binding U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Approved by a vast majority of the U.N. member states in September 2007, the General Assembly resolution on the declaration was rejected by the George W. Bush administration over indigenous leaders' argument that no economic or political power has the right to exploit their resources without seeking their "informed consent."
Three other "settler nations" of European descent, namely Canada, New Zealand and Australia, also voted against the declaration, which states that indigenous peoples have the right to maintain their cultures and remain on their land.
However, last month, the new left-leaning government in Canberra reversed its position, announcing support for the declaration.
"We show our respect for indigenous peoples," said Jenny Macklin, a member of the Australian parliament. "We show our faith in a new era of relations between states and indigenous peoples in good faith."
The new government of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has also offered an apology to the indigenous communities who suffered at the hands of European settlers for decades.
Indigenous rights activists in the United States say they want the new liberal democratic government in Washington to make a similar move to address the grievances of native communities who have long been subjected to abuse and discrimination.
"The U.S. [should] become a resolute supporter of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples," argued James Polk, who writes for Foreign Policy in Focus, a progressive periodical published by the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington.
"It's a comprehensive document that affirms that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, and that, in the exercise of their rights, they should be free from their discrimination," he added.
The declaration reflects growing concerns of aboriginal communities about the continued exploitation of their resources and suppression of their cultural vales and practices by commercial concerns and governments that are alien to their cultures.
According to many scientists, the traditional knowledge and cooperation of indigenous communities are vital elements in the global fight against climate change and loss of biodiversity.
During his election campaign, President Obama repeatedly said that he cared about the issues facing Native American communities and insisted that they could trust him - pledges that are now being watched closely.
As reached out to new voter blocs last summer, Obama made a campaign stop at an Indian reservation in Montana, where he told the audience, that, as an African American, he identified with their struggles.
"I know what it's like to not have always been respected or to have been ignored and I know what it's like to struggle and that's how I think many of you understand what's happened here on the reservation," Obama said.
In his speech, Obama added: "A lot of times you have been forgotten, just like African-Americans have been forgotten or other groups in this country have been forgotten."
In the Nov. 4 presidential elections, a vast majority of Native people voted for Obama, according to Frank LaMere of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, who led the American Indian delegation to the Democratic Convention.
On the campaign trail in Montana, Obama was adopted as an honourary member of the Crow Tribe, a ceremony that natives say is reserved for special guests. On that occasion, he was given a new name, "Barack Black Eagle."
Before Obama became the first-ever non-white president of the United States, the country faced scathing criticism from a Geneva-based U.N. rights body for its treatment of the indigenous communities and objectionable use of their traditional lands and resources.
In March 2006 and again in 2008, a panel of U.S. experts analysed the U.S. government's treatment of indigenous citizens and ruled that it was guilty of racial discrimination.
Canada, another settler-nation founded on the indigenous territories in North America, has also been scolded by the U.N. Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) for its abusive and discriminatory treatment of acts of native communities.
The right-wing government in Ottawa continues to justify its current policies towards the native population as just and fair with no indication whatsoever of a willingness to sign the U.N. document on indigenous peoples' rights.
In the United States, there appears to be some signs of policy shift with regard to the U.S. government's relations with the American Indian communities. Some representatives of indigenous tribes are currently working with Obama as advisors.
However, it remains unclear when and if the Obama administration would sign the declaration. "I can't comment further," said Ventrell about the outcome of discussions on possible U.S. support.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
42 Comments so far
Show AllAren't Indians just immigrants too since humans originated in africa? I am one quarter Cherokee Indian and am embarrassed for my begging brethren.
It's all about money and power because these groups couldn't care less about the average person of any race creed or color.
Well, I am one-half Mexican and this fact certainly doesn't position me to make sweeping statements about hundreds of millions of people. Of course there are people who are only interested in money and power. This does not mean that all people (of any category) are solely motivated by these interests.
First of all, Indians are not immigrants because immigration is a modern phenomenon. The way that people have populated the world is complex and took tens of thousands of years ...not a few hundred in the context of economic expansion projects.
But even if we say that Indians *are* immigrants, this does not help you--or people like you--to ignore the indigenous peoples of Africa who, through your own logic, have been there from the beginning of time.
Finally, [begging brethren]? Really? How very simplistic. You have no analysis and it is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about my quarter-Cherokee friend. Someone has clearly done a good brain washing of your conscience. Perhaps you are not aware that until the 1990s, the Canadian government regularly kidnapped Indian children (in fact, I grew up with two Indian Canadians who learned that they were stolen from their kin and their land); that Indian women were sterilized against their will across the Americas; that Australian Aborigines have suffered horrific abuses at the hands of Australians for centuries; that Africans are regularly tortured and maimed so that major corporations can rape their bodies and their lands... These are only small examples.
When the Zapatistas organized to fight policies and practices of NAFTA, of their government, of the International Monetary Fund, etc... they were *not* beggars. They were standing up and speaking truth, fighting for social and economic and environmental justice, demonstrating that a different world and a different set of enacted values are not only possible but desired by the people.
XO, Nia Savage
Detroit, MI USA
From a Native brother with nearly 20 years in Mexico: good post.
when white people want to be Native Americans, they always say thet are Cherokee.
Anyway you can, if you really speak for your Nation, which you do not, decline to accept.
What you may NOT do is decline on behalf of the other 400+ indigenous people who have been preyed upon, colonized, raped and robbed and murdered to the brink of extinction by greedy capitalists who must always have all of everyone's land and treasure.
or: who would Crazy Horse apologize to?
It isn't about immigrating.
It's about being the first here.
And I am embarrassed for brethren like you--if you really ARE Cherokee.
You should at least have enough sense to know why some of our brethren are begging to stay alive.
Sounds like you just don't want to spare a dime, brother.
Harpers stand on this , as par for the course for him on most issues, is shameful.
if anyone really thinks that Obummer will support this, i have some time-shares to sell you.
The US has a long history of divide and conquer, the American Way is simply exploit the land and people, rights be damned.
even if he does sign the Declaration, will it stop the Corporations from intruding on those lands? I don't think so!
When did this whole land ownership thing start?
One day some guy some where, just woke up and said all this shit is mine, and I'll die for it too. If you want a piece, you have to ask me, to sell it to you.
Didn't God make the land for everyone?
Who is the first to decide that they OWN the land?
I bet what ever document we have some native sign, they will get Shiny Beads or a Tivo, or an iPhone, or a Walmart gift card and the U.S. will just rape the hell out of the land in exchange.
Cause so long as it is documented it's OK. Like the patriot act, sounds good, but you suffer later.
Native peoples everywhere need to learn a little english, for one reason.
Make their own deed to there land, and write "It is ours, and it's not for sale"
Wow, that's some really nice old-time racism you have pouring from your under-worked brain. Indigenous peoples *have* understood terms of contractual agreements. Imperialist governments and major corporations have worked very hard to utilize their unbelievably immense powers to do whatever they want at the expense of us all. Speaking English is not enough when you and your people are the victims of mass genocide (that, by the way, continues to this day).
Even if we take the Patriot Act as an example that involves all of us as American citizens, it has to be recognized that the people did not agree to it. Our representatives and our leaders enacted this legislation without attention to what the people desired. It was a minority that were too short-sighted who thought the Patriot Act was a good idea. The majority of Americans got exactly what we expected we'd get--loss of Constitutional rights, hence, loss of Democracy. These things don't happen to [us] or [them] because we are too stupid to realize the inherent problems in dominator contracts or fascist orders. They happen because we live in a world where there is power and wealth consolidation.
Mass genocide occurred across the Americas over hundreds of years. It doesn't matter how talented one is with the English language if your people are systematically murdered, maimed, tortured, indentured in a system of debt bondage, etc...
But, perhaps you are too busy playing with your own shiny beads to notice.
Savage
I think ianplank was defending the indigenous people and commenting on the idea of land ownership as a whole. Maybe the message was flawed in the sending. Or they are a bigot.
Mass genocide has been the way mankind has opperated for thousands of years. The world has always had power and wealth consolidation. One tribe/group is almost always looking to take advantage of another (read that as weaker) group.
Patriot Act - Snap decisions are generally bad decisions.
As to the initial question of land ownership, I think it works like this; once man figured out how to subside through agrarian means he started to put a lot of work into the land in order to grow food. It takes an enormous amounts of energy to farm a plot of hand. This is the land that you depend upon for your tribes/clans/family groups survival. It becomes your land by the sweat of your brow. And there you have the beginnings of why we wage war at all.
Maybe.
Alfarinn
By the way my wife is from Nicaragua, my best friend is black, and my brothers girlfriend is Vietnamese.
MAYBE OBAMA IS A BIGOT, CAUSE HE DOESN'T LIVE IN THE JUNGLE BUT IS MAKING DOCUMENTS ON THESE JUNGLE PEOPLE AND .....................THE DOCUMENTS ARE IN ENGLISH!!!!!!!
SO like I said the jungle people really do need to learn ENGLISH!!!
Saying that doesn't make me a bigot, but a REALIST.
Savage your an ASSHOLE.
I said that the US gov't rapes other peoples land and takes advantage of them.
How does that make me a bigot?
There use to be 9 million people living in the Amazon Rain Forest....Now there is only 11,000.
Obviously genocide has occured in the USA, cause where are all the Native Americans?
They don't even have there own BET, or Telemundo, or Univision. Why?
Cause they are in their own casinos counting shiny beads, instead of taking back their own country.
If you don't know what I'm saying, keep your mouth shut. GOSH!!!!
Savage: WAKE UP AND SMELL THE REALITY
The US gov't has invaded and put military bases on every country on the planet. You DO need to know english to deal with these people.
Savage said: Speaking English is not enough when you and your people are the victims of mass genocide (that, by the way, continues to this day).
ianplank said: One day some guy some where, just woke up and said all this shit is mine, and I'll die for it too. If you want a piece, you have to ask me, to sell it to you.
(That doesn't make me a bigot, that is what is happening)
Savage what are you going to do about the genocide.......BLOG ABOUT IT?
I guess your one of the those persons that is ready to kill someonelse over land.
Not me. I say "share and share alike". I also wrote in my previous statement that "God made the land for everyone".
But I'm still a BIGOT right?
Savage I think your the bigot cause your response was written in ENGLISH, just like mine was.
You could stand to learn some English, too.
It's THEIR land--not THERE land.
And Native folks are not into ownershipi. I don't believe that land should be bought and sold.
The buying and selling of land is what put your pinche civiization in the night soil bucket.
Alfarinn-
You said:
"Mass genocide has been the way mankind has opperated for thousands of years. The world has always had power and wealth consolidation. One tribe/group is almost always looking to take advantage of another (read that as weaker) group"
I agree and disagree.
"The world has always had power and wealth consolidation."
You must surely realized how inaccurate this seems. It could border on the philosophical if we really wanted an existentialist debate.
But to stick with the subject of humans for now, in referring to "the world" I think it an inaccurate way to refer to humans. Or, as i gather you mean it - domesticated humans only. Neither of which are "the world". Further, I disagree that humans have always had power and wealth consolidation. Power and wealth consolidation are symptoms of the civilized. Indeed, power and wealth are some of the more defining traits that differentiate the domesticate from the wild.
I think that the genocide thing also coincides with the so-called "Agrarian Curse". But let's also not forget that "mankind", humanity, or human-kind, has been around for a heck of a lot longer than "thousands of years". I think civilization is not a fair representation of what most believe is human nature.
Therefore I must disagree with your assesment of "mankind".
You almost seem to be equating tribal war with genocide and/or modern war. We know that the terms of warfare between pre civilized and civilized peoples are vastly different."War" has an entirely different connotation in tribal cultures. I must also disagree with what appears to be a somewhat sweeping statement, "One tribe/group is almost always looking to take advantage of another (read that as weaker) group." This most certainly did (does) occur. But you seem to be presenting it as the rule rather than the exceptions that we now understand these occurances to have been. Your statement comes off as dismissive of all those who lived in rhythm with the land - nature based communities.
To present pre-civilied peoples in this manner - that they "are almost alwasy looking to take advantage of the weak, only supports the Hobbesian,"nasty, brutish, and short..." roving hoards of savages story that has enable civilized people to dismiss the non-civilied as being non-human. Untermenschen. And therefore exterminate them as mere animals(forgetting that we are (domesticated) animals ourselves, and forgetting that wild animals do not act as poorly as the so-called civilized human animals do).
But really, if pre civilized peoples were so hell bent on dominating the weak, could they possibly have existed on their land bases for hundreds of thousands of years? With little to no footprint? The answer seems self evident.
Taking advantage of the weak is a civilized trait. Not the otherway around.
Thank you.
-Glen
Glen, I don't have much time right now so please allow me to address your points at a later time. I look forward to this discussion.
Warmest regards,
Alfarinn
Sign it, build fenced Native Citizen and Wildlife Preserves and save what's left of the Amazon and other forests for a while longer, but only with the provisions that no one but known tribe members will be allowed in the preserve unless invited by the Indians and then only scientists, no businesspeople or tourists, in strictly limited number, only once or twice a year for a short time and are disease free.
No extractive industries are allowed, no missionaries, no European type money economy for Indians, no outside interference in Indian matters, no trade, no liquor, no firearms, no invasion of their lands and only native citizen's laws apply.
If Indians kill miners, farmers, trespassers or each other on Indian land, no interference by the country's government, military, police or civilians will be allowed.
Indians will be encouraged to stay isolated in their large preserve. If they leave, they will be subject to the country's laws, screened for communicable diseases, prevented from re-entering if contaminated or deemed a danger to the preserve, and not be allowed to bring back any of the white man's products.
I'm going to refrain from calling you the name I thought of when I read your post, ezeflyer. I'll just say that Aboriginals have been herded and penned up long enough.
There is a difference between choosing to adopt other ways of living and having your way of life exterminated and you being given no choice. As a descendant of slaves, I understand this better than most. No matter what, I cannot go back to Africa and 'reclaim' my culture, languages, gods, etc. I'm essentially a white person with dark skin. Our aboriginal brothers and sisters are being victimized and, if they resist, simply wiped out wholesale.
It would probably be better if our white brothers would go back to Europe, put a wall around themselves and let the rest of the world be. But, then again, who am I to say? Isn't Europe a large enough preserve for you?
Fenced? You can't be serious. Outlandish. You better rethink your preposterous ideas ezeflyer. Next.
Indigenous civilizations also have the capacity to call upon the essential of the human spirit so battered by the present, longstanding but failing dominant system. It is worth mentioning that our Bill of Rights originated with the wisdom of the Iroquois. An introduction to this can be downloaded for free with Bruce Johansen's book Forgotten Founders.
The Guarani peoples are in Brasilia this week - their battle is against massive monoculture of soy, sugar cane, etc.. that is not only destroying fragile biomes, but the greed fueled by biofuel craze in Brazil is has fired up a documented genocide. In the 17th century Jesuit Antonio Montoya stayed with the Guarani and developed the core of a lexicon and said that the language was so elegant that it could stand with any in the world - the book was published in Spain as "The treasure of the Guarani Language". The father of western taxonomy Carl Linee referred to the Guarani as "primus verus systematicus '- first true system - for their intellectuual contributions to biology. Over 10,000 words in Brazilian Portuguese are of Tupi-Guarani origin. This is just a snapshot of what has been supressed.
There are also different ways of learning. To learn is to confirm ignorance, calling for humility. Western society has made the rather odd choice to eliminate peoples who assiduously attend to knowledge/wisdom that is passed down from generation to generation. It has gotten not only western civilization but the entire world in a mess.
Hopefully Obama will have the wisdom to hold the door open for the elders to enter and be heard. They are needed because their existance among peoples who still know how to rebalance local relationships with the earth is a paradigm that has not only survived despite the western genocides, but is desperately needed if we are to shift in time to do what needs to be done.
Gee old goat you took the words outa my mouth- great post.
Just would like to add that humnankind lived as gathering and hunting people for like 500,000 years before there was civilization, and they really define what it is to be human.
What civilization has done and is doing to our planet in its few thousand years is bring it close to total oblivion.
Think about it- indigenous people were such perfect stewards of the land that they kept it alive and beautiful and fresh and clean for hundreds of millennia before civilization started to wreck it.
This will absolutely never happen. If it does happen, it will be ignored or applied in only a token fashion, to join the ranks of many, many other UN declarations America supports on paper and disregards in practice (see Non-Proliferation Treaty, Convention on Torture, etc).
If native people were given control over their land and resources, do I really have to point out that that means the entire US would have to be returned to native control? At least Hawai'i; I guess in the case of, say, parts of Florida, there really isn't anyone left to give it back to...
There are still Seminoles, among others, in Florida.
The "Torah" I believe, states that if you "act if you have faith", you will "have faith", certainly this is the major tenet of most belief systems---
" you first, must believe"------------"then you will receive".
The World----led by the USA----especially in this matter does not have any "pressing needs" to acknowledge Native Peoples Rights.
Indeed, until the Native Peoples are ready and willing to "act as if they have rights"---no others will be willing to acknowledge those rights.
They certainly have numbers on their sides, from one continent to another, all of the people of Native Origins could---if they were simply organized----
Do what is "necessary to establish pressing needs" to recognize Native Peoples Rights. The Native Peoples need only to "enforce" their own rights---then others would recognize them.
I will be the first volunteer-----------
The USA has a history right up to this very moment of mockery of their Native Peoples Rights, and enjoy tremendous material wealth as a result of that mockery. They are illegally in possession of more than 60% of their geographical territory as a result of the mockery of the treaties---which represent "Supreme Law" or so their "Constitution" declares.....
Make America recognize their Native Peoples Rights---and the entire world will follow.
If that ever happened---good luck America ---you really would need it.
" you first, must believe"------------"then you will receive"
That's why I call it a "make believe" religion. (pun intended)
I will be the second volunteer.
"It would probably be better if our white brothers would go back to Europe, put a wall around themselves and let the rest of the world be. But, then again, who am I to say? Isn't Europe a large enough preserve for you?"
Well that's just it. How do we know that other groups wouldn't just start feuding with each other when white people are gone? Whites don't have a monopoly on imperialism.
Maybe if the ELITES went away and let us all be, things would be better. Or if we all went to the lands of our ancestors, built walls and let each other be?
And can we all fit into Europe? It seems like everyone and their uncle either want to go there or come here to the States. I've thought about going. I won't lie. All my life I've felt as if this country has little to offer me and that people resent me for simply being here.
America doesn't feel like home to me, and I was born here. I don't hate America. I want to believe that America can overcome its flaws, rectify its wrongs, and make it so that all of us will want to live in harmony. We, the 99% , have been able to capture that transracial, transethnic solidarity before. In a sense we did it very recently, but it isn't enough, and we've been given fool's gold.
Can it happen again? Or is a divorce the only solution. Irreconcilable differences?
"It would probably be better if our white brothers would go back to Europe, put a wall around themselves and let the rest of the world be. But, then again, who am I to say? Isn't Europe a large enough preserve for you?"
I'm not sure what colour I am, it depends on how long I have been in the sun. This issue relates to inequality rather than race, otherwise where do we start, maybe the UK could start deporting the Anglo Saxons back to Germany, the Danes to Denmark and the Celts back to France and Scotland, well the Scottish would have to go back to Ireland.
"What divides us is an illusion, made up by men in their confusion."
-Ziggy Marley, In The Name Of God, Dragonfly, 2003
"It would probably be better if our white brothers would go back to Europe, put a wall around themselves and let the rest of the world be. But, then again, who am I to say? Isn't Europe a large enough preserve for you?"
This was pure sarcasm and not a desire of mine. Ezeflyer was being an ass when he suggested that indigenous and aboriginal peoples be placed in walled compounds in the Amazon, or whatever. It was sickening and I think that people like that should wall themselves away from the world.
I totally agree with you. It's us, the poor, the downtrodden and the so-called powerless, of all races, colors, creeds, cultures, etc., that should unite and get rid of the richfilth elites.
rockymyboy,
What you don't seem to get it that it is none of your damn business what happens after you have gone.
Seems to me that your task is to find a place where you are not an illegal alien.
As for the elites, the thread on immigration rights on this site indicated that the elites are the LEAST of the problem--and the rednecks, hillbillies and militant shitkickers are just as mean and inbred as they always were.
Like it or not America exist, that's a historical reality. All citizens have equal rights by law. If Native Americans do not, that should be corrected and the laws enforced. Giving anyone property rights based on their race is racism and segregation via reservations is also racist.
Native Americans were constantly at war with each other and took slaves from other tribes. It was not a utopian way of life some would like you to believe in. In fact, life for the Western natives was very tough before the Europeans brought over horses. As the natives for the most part were not an agrarian society but hunter gatherers, they were susceptible to European diseases which killed large numbers. Africa on the other hand was protected in part because tropical diseases there took a terrible toll on Europeans, preventing them from colonizing Africa in large numbers. The kings in Africa were eager to trade and gladly sold their people off as slaves, so the Europeans settled for the slave trade.
Congress, by passing the Dawes Act in 1887, intended to end the segregation and dependent status of Indians by breaking up the reservations after a transition period.
In 1934 the entire process was reversed when Congress abandoned the policy to assimilate Indian people into American society and passed tThe Indian Reorganization Act. In doing so, Congress created hundreds of thousands permanent reservation residents. These reservation, political and economic systems remain to this day.
The Federal government spends over $4.7 billion annually, primarily on behalf of the 500,000 Indians that live on reservations. This is about $10,000 per person or $40,000 for a family of four. This serves the governments purpose of keeping much of the western part of the country undeveloped so corporations can exploit it's resources w/o competing with developers for the land, and it harms the Native Americans as well.
Time to treat the Indians as full citizens and complete the assimilation. End the reservation system NOW. It's been over a century and all Native Americans have been born in the USA and are citizens.
Dear Green-Is-Red-
Like the name.
But I hafta say, some of the ideas you present are a bit disturbing. "Complete the assimilation?" I know for a fact that many many many native peoples want nothing to do with that. Are you in favor of forcing them? If so, you must realize that this would be regression not progression. Internment? Nice.
And I am also getting really tired and bored of the "It was not a utopian way of life some would like you to believe in." that gets trotted out so often when it is suggested that native peoples knew how to live better than we domesticates do. Yes there was violence, war, slavery, even cannibalism. And even (gasp!) death. But the "utopian" phrase is disingenuous and you know it. This story only serves to dismiss those who would recognize all that we could learn from our ancestors (and those still living who remember) about how to live in the world. All that has been stolen, lost, or destroyed. The "utopian" story that I hear so, so often, serves only to create the impression that those who admire and would honor primitive living, are some sort of delusional fantasists, who believe there was never any pain or hardship prior to civilization. It's somewhat of a straw-man argument because no one has said "our problems are over dude" if we go back to the old ways. Nobody said "utopia" but you.
Thing is, I likely wouldn't survive if things went back that way somehow. I don't have the knowledge. I don't have the skills. So what? The planet would be a hell of a lot better off if those of us who would be clueless if we were lost in the woods for more than a week were suddenly not here, were suddenly not consuming the world, were suddenly not extracting resources (read destroying land bases and eco systems).
The fact that you among others would present the english words (hence english definitions) "slavery" and "war", as normal facets of primitive living is also disingenuos, misleading, and I submit, dishonest. Not only do those words/ideas have different meaning for those tribes who participated in them, but to equate also the scale as being anything close to warfare and slavery of both pre industrial and current civilization, is nothing less than shifty rationale. I have had this conversation hundreds of times and frankly, until folks want to get honest about what information they are presenting, I offer little respect for their opinions.
The whole notion of plodding on to the bitter end with civilization because as I've often heard said, "we can't ever go back"(Chomsky), seems to be the hidden rationale of the anti primitivist. They fear their limitations. As I fear mine. They are the same limitation. It's called civilization. It binds us.We are dependent on it for our very lives. So instead, we come up with stories that keep us keeping on. Damn the cost. And we tell ourselves that it's so much better and that we're so much more free now than when life was, as I mentioned upthread, "Nasty. Brutish. Short."
Thank you.
-Glen
Mind if I cut in? Noam's right, we can't go back. We never do. We go forward. But we don't have to go in the same direction that "civilization" has taken during the preceding decades and centuries. We can make conscious choices that respect and integrate indigenous wisdom. As indigenous wisdom is incorporated into our consciousness we make choices that begin to change the direction of humanity.
Changes are coming quickly. While some families are stuck in the old school modes, others, like ours and a multitude of others are moving into pioneer territory that incorporates the best of high tech with the best of indigenous wisdom. We are on the cutting edge of human evolution. We represent the new direction humanity is taking. The sun is our father and the earth is our mother. They together meet all our needs abundantly.
Dear Moondoggy-
Noam is incorrect. And he's anthropocentic. Which makes him morally inept(I would say bankrupt but I really enjoy his analysis of how humans treat other humans. But.). Show me one piece of his writings that shows he cares about anything other than humans.And what is most unethical - Racism or anthropocentrism? Human oppression or eco-cide?
The story of human evolution is also a civilized story. Stories. The story that humans are the pinnacle of existence is a civilized one. That the universe and the world is here for us humans to evolve and do as we like is adolescent self infatuation. It only serves the master. And it dishonors the eons of others who have lived before us. We're only talkin' about 10-14 thousand years here that us civilized peeps have even been around. Primitive folks lived hundreds of thousands of years in relative harmony (not read disneyland)with their surroundings. We live with relative disharmony. And it's normalized by stories.
It's a fairly self serving sentiment to discount those millenia of human existence that only had technology as advanced as that of the stone age. Fairly sustainable technology tho'... fairly organic. Technology won't save us. It's what has gotten us here in the first place. (By the way, this is the part usually where someone chimes in with the quickly becoming a cliche - "you're a hypocrite! You're using a computer!")
Technology requires what we civilized call resources. Wild beings would call what we call resources -home.We call the theft and destruction of wild beings homes - progress. If you think a city is beautiful imagine what that land looked like before it's domestication.
Nature based primitive cultures generally did not put themselves at the top of some hierachical chain. Generally speaking, they often viewed themselves as weak - thus necessitating their need to kill, or take life in order to live. All other beings were revered, worshiped and respected.
We are not the most important thing to ever come down the pike. Yet we worship ourselves and disrespect/disregard all those who are not us. At our peril.
Stories. If we compare stories between nature based peoples and ourselves, they seem the humble, mature, wise ones. If we look at the stories that have shaped our dominant cultures, we will see how destructive they have been. We will see how we have behaved like whiney little selfish brats - taking taking taking. With little to no thought about giving, sharing co-operating. Why would we? We believe it's all about us.
Thank you.
-Glen
Well thought-out and nicely composed rebuttal, brother Glen. We all are somewhat sheltered no matter how well informed we are. And we all have our unique perspective.
From my limited perspective I'm seeing a younger generation coming into maturity with a much more advanced ecological consciousness than the preceding Woodstock generation. They seem much mellower, more confident and are serious about making ecological choices. They are motivated to make the changes that historians will look back and see as a huge turning point, where we embodied global consciousness.
People lacking global consciousness wouldn't have a clue what I'm referring to because they haven't yet crossed that threshold. Those who are blind from birth cannot understand sight.
In 10 years the way we have been doing almost everything will be obsolete.
I would say more, but it's my turn to jump into our wood-fired shower. Blessings.
When US Indians were forced to become "citizens" in 1924 that particular gesture on the part of the US governemt was designed to capture them "en passant"--in the sense that if they are US citizens they are no longer part of a sovereign indigenous nation.
That's it--in a nutshell.
Anything else is just smeared excrement.
All my US passport has done for me as an indigenous person is to get me the fuck out of the US.
This is a big one. We need UNIVERSAL rights to land, water and food. Right NOW. This lays the groundwork for dispersed, local economic/political power. Not to mention food on the table! Heh heh. Urge O'Bamba to do what he wasn't elected to do. Extremely difficult, but not impossible. Break down his door and "make him do it". Demok voters owe the world.
IT'S SHOWTIME!
We're all indigenous, and we're all tourists.
InLakesh (I am another you - Mayan)
"rockymyboy,
What you don't seem to get it that it is none of your damn business what happens after you have gone.
Seems to me that your task is to find a place where you are not an illegal alien.
As for the elites, the thread on immigration rights on this site indicated that the elites are the LEAST of the problem--and the rednecks, hillbillies and militant shitkickers are just as mean and inbred as they always were."
See sancho, you're exhibiting the kind of behavior/attitudes I spoke of in another thread. You don't seem to want an understanding. This is a problem on both sides of the issue. It's either right-wing Nationalists or people like you, all of you seem to want to kick my ass. It amazes me really. I can understand the anger people have, but fuck all.
Yeah, it is the world's damn business what happens because we all know who'll get blamed when things don't work out.
No, the elites ARE the problem because they cause it all and benefit from it, creating the right-wingers and bitter militants like you. You all simply define yourselves by who you are opposed to, and the elites and their policies essentially create you. You all more than anything appear to thrive on turmoil. The right-wingers give you a reason to exist and vice-versa. And it's the people in the middle, who want concord and resolution that bear the brunt of it.
I wonder if people will ever realize that one race of people is not the devil of their life.
Who am I supposed to hate? I have half a dozen Nazi assholes that seemingly want to kill me because I won't endorse their B.S. I can't endorse this B.S. either. Sorry.
Militancy and fascism are divided by a thin paper wall.
I dunno, I'm a white person. I don't feel that I am a demon or virus or superior to anyone based on my ethnic makeup. I don't feel that the indigenous are out to kill me. I do feel that a restitution is in order for them.
So how about you anglo-bashers and immigrant-bashers of all stripes just kiss my ass, ok? I'm not playing this stupid divisive game. It's what the people at the very top want, and they'd snuff out my white ass as quick as they would a red man's. Have fun. Meanwhile at work on Monday I'm either going to get fired for knocking out a racist right-wing asshole or get knifed by him, and I'm sure my many fans who run the gamut of bastards from white supremacists, black supremacists, drug dealers, thugs, biker gangs, Zionists, angry middle-class white guys, misogynists, misandrists, Satanists, Christian fundies, radical Muslims, yuppie Friedmanites, dumb flag-wavers with guns and booze troubles, church burners with corpsepaint, NSBM'er, and sociopathic, cyberstalking fat kids with acne, no friends, and too much computer time, will be dancing in the streets.
Toodles and fuck off.
oops.