Friday, January 25, 2008

What are Indigenous Rights?

People who belong to indigenous cultures around the world have the right to:

1. Speak their language, teaching it to their children
2. Feed and take care of their family
3. Practice their religion

Rights and privileges come with responsibilities. You can't expect to receive indigenous rights if you don't live up to the accompanying responsibilities.

As a person of indigenous heritage, one should be expected to:

1. Speak your language, teaching it to your children
2. Feed and take care of your family
3. Practice your religion

What do you think? There has already been some discussion on this topic on an earlier post. There is also a lot of information and many great links over on Wikipedia.

11 comments:

Ron Hodges said...

I don't know how what indigieuinous rights are, it seems a little racist and a move in the wrong direction to me....but i thought MLK got stiffed in the poll with Reagan and Lincoln's decendants should sue over sticking him 3rd.

other post below

( Angelo - I could see Lincoln (2nd) but Reagan(1st) intensified the arms race while the gap between rich and poor in America widen for the first time since FDR...who would have been a clear 3rd outside the scientific arena, besides RR was a champion among the conservative white midwest and southern bible belt areas. He was the forerunner of George (I'll kill the terrorists & gays) W.

Arms for hostages baby, just read my lips.

The Saipan Blogger アンジェロ・ビラゴメズ said...

You think speaking your language, caring for your family, and practicing your religion is a move in the wrong direction?

Saipan Writer said...

It seems odd to me that these three things are listed as rights of "indigenous." I'd like them to be rights of all people, wherever they live.

I think people should be permitted to speak their own language, whether at home or living elsewhere. Same for caring for family and for practicing religion.

Each of these is tempered by the rights of others--e.g. obviously if your religion called for the extermination of all non-believers, it would be a hard "right" to justify enforcing. You can't care for your family by robbing your neighbor. Speaking your own language doesn't mean you can exclude non-speakers from essential medical care. Etc.

I don't see these as "indigenous" rights any more than I see them as "foreign" rights. They are human rights, which we should all share.

And I think labeling them as "indigenous" sets up a divide we don't need.

The Saipan Blogger アンジェロ・ビラゴメズ said...

so indigenous people have no rights?

bradinthesand said...

so are you saying you're against indigenous lefts?

The Saipan Blogger アンジェロ・ビラゴメズ said...

Are you promoting discrimination against indigenous populations if they are not ambiturners?

bradinthesand said...

do you think walt would help them become indigenous ambipreneurs?

O. Calimbas said...

you brought this up before, and i thought dominic's reply was good. i also responded. i'm reprinting the comments below:

dominic said - I always thought of indegenous rights as a political (power) issue. I tend to think of it as a group of individuals who are somewhat "conservative" in their beliefs in terms of resisting change by colonizing or hegemonic forces. These rights, I believe, entail a person's choice to a way of life that is consistent with cultural traditions especially in terms of spirituality and subsistence.

Indegenous rights have become codified into law especially in countries that have a history of colonization like Australia and the US.

Tribal casinos are not about indegenous rights but of political self-determination by various American Indian nations.

Have you seen that movie "Syriana"? Where Matt Damon and the Saudi prince are driving down the desert road and yield to a herd of goats sheparded by the bedouin (right before the CIA drops a missile on them)?? The shepard's right of way through the road is an indegenous right NOT drilling for oil. Although he could, but then he would be accountable to global forces where business and politics only care for their profit and not about where you can herd your goats.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007 3:06:00 PM


O. Calimbas said...
I tend to think of indigenous rights the same way as dominic sees it in his (?) first paragraph. Indigenous peoples are addressed with respect to their plight as disenfranchised and dispossessed by former colonizers or their neo-colonizers, if there is such a thing.

Actually, I think the UN adopted a declaration on indigenous rights just a couple months ago, but it had been in the works for quite a while, probably stirred up by the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in '92.

That may be your segue, Angelo, to the environment. Indigenous rights intrinsically involve the land as much as culture does with nonmodern society.

And it was at the Earth Summit that good 'ole Bush, Sr. announced that the lifestyle of modern society was "not up for negotiation."

Now, I suppose the question may be whether the notion of indigenous rights (as dominic and i see it) fit with the CNMI. My instincts say no, but then again, I'm an outsider with limited knowledge of this area.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007 4:20:00 PM

Dominic said...

I agree that indegenous rights codes can be divisive. It looks like affirmative action and almost makes a statement that a group of people have indeed been dominated both culturally and economically when indegenous rights are codified. Just like our consitutional rights of speech, religion, assembly etc where its virtue and strength depends more on its practice than mere knowledge that these rights exist. If the goal is to perpetuate a culture then it should be inclusive and allow people of other places and cultures to embrace it, call it their own and contribute to it.

Do you think that CNMI taxpayer's money used to fund Chamorro/Carolinian language classes is an indegenous right?

Dominic said...

I agree that indegenous rights codes can be divisive. It looks like affirmative action and almost makes a statement that a group of people have indeed been dominated both culturally and economically when indegenous rights are codified. Just like our consitutional rights of speech, religion, assembly etc where its virtue and strength depends more on its practice than mere knowledge that these rights exist. If the goal is to perpetuate a culture then it should be inclusive and allow people of other places and cultures to embrace it, call it their own and contribute to it.

Do you think that CNMI taxpayer's money used to fund Chamorro/Carolinian language classes is an indegenous right?

Dominic said...

After what 8 years of GWB,people will be moved to protect the US Constitution as an indegenous right , lol. Seriously.