UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

I opened the Boston Metro, a free paper you usually read on the subway, to some good news today: the UN adopted a "Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples".  They mentioned U.S. opposition to the declaration, but I wonder if they purposely ommitted something or they just wrote too quick, when the Boston Metro sourced this BBC article:
The BBC reported yesterday that the General Assembly passed it, with 143 countries voting for it and 11 abstaining.
It seems they declined to mention that four nations voted against it.  The U.S., Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.  I mean how sad is it that on a historic day when a declaration like this is adopted, almost a millenium after indigenous people really started getting stomped on, you have to read something like this?
Australia said it could not allow tribes' customary law to be given precedence over national law.

"There should only be one law for all Australians and we should not enshrine in law practices that are not acceptable in the modern world," said Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough.

A leader of a group representing Canada's native communities criticised his government's decision to oppose the declaration.

"We're very dissapointed...It's about the human righs of indigenous peoples throughout the world.  It's an important symbol," said Phil Fontaine, leader of the Assembly of First Nations.

'Need for balance'

Campaign group Survival International says Canada's Innu tribe, who live in the frozen Labrador-Quebec peninsula, are struggling to maintain their traditional lifestyle as the government allows mining concessions, hydro-electric power schemes, and roads on their land.

The Canadian government said it supported the "spirit" of the declaration, but could not support it because it "contains provisions that are fundamentally incompatible with Canada's constitutional framework."

"It also does not recognise Canada's need to balance indigenous rights to lands and resources with the rights of others," a joint statement from the Canadian ministries of Indian and Foreign Affairs said.
The full "Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples" is very well done.  It doesn't really work for me to take out excerpts of it.  As a whole it does an amazing job of seeking the goal of equality while highlighting the individual and different qualities that indigenous peoples bring to the table.

Comments

  • Re: UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

    I can understand why sensible governments wouldn't sign this agreement.

    It is filled with a bunch of extremly vauge statements that can be interpreted any number of ways. So indiginous people are entitled to their traditional lands? Does that mean Kyle de Beausset is prepared to hand over his home in Boston??? Because pretty much all of North America is the traditional land of indiginous people! And indiginous people have a right to "intellectual property" to their "traditional knowledge"? So does this mean that indiginous get a royalty on corn and potatos and tomatos, and pretty much every important part of our diet today? And who exactly is the intellectual property owner? Do I pay the Aztecs my royalty fee for eating corn, or do I pay the Mayans? And do indiginous people in Africa have to pay indiginous people in South America for the right to grow yams?

    What about tribes of indiginous people who want to participate in traditional practices such as female circumcision on unwilling women? Should the government force those woman to undergo that procedure, because it is a traditional practice where they live... and even subsidize the practice if nessicary? Remember folks, if you don't think the government should subsidize having woman forced into getting their clit shopped off with a stone knife, you are guilty of promoting cultural genocide according to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

    Does this document even describe what an indiginous person is? Is someone indiginous if there great great great grandmother was half Cherokee? Is a white guy from Germany indiginous because he married someone who lives on a reservation and now lives their and participates in the culture himself? What the hell does "indiginous person" mean? The declaration gives no definition.

    And if you think I am being silly because "we aren't going to really give back Boston to indiginous people" or "we aren't going to really pay royalties on corn", or "we aren't going to actually subsidize traditional indiginous practices that we don't approve of".  then what is the whole point of this agreement? Feel good bullshit that has no meaning?

    Does it occure to people that just because a bunch of corrupt Kleptocrats put together a piece of paper that is called "Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples", doesn't mean that signing it has anything to do with actually supporting the rights of Indigenous Peoples? Or than not signing it doesn't mean that you don't support the rights of Indigenous peoples?


    • Re: UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

      wow...i was going to comment, but Anonymous above summed it up nicely.  This is something to make people think the U.N. is relevant and benevolent, of which they are neither.


    • Re: UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

      First of all the resolution is non-binding so it's meant more as a set of principles to strive for than a set of restrictions to adhere to.  You've stated several points that I disagree with, but I would prefer if you identified yourself before I argue with you just so I can get an idea of where your coming from and if you've posted here before.


    • Re: UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

      i am going to go with my basic understanding of this declaration merely giving indigenous people the official right to continue to practice their way of life without the infringement of the government into their culture and land beyond the most necessary. it is seeking to integrate them into the global community in a respresentable fashion that will give them the rights and abilities to preserve their culture and land.

      while the signing of this declaration may not in reality end up doing anything, it is AT LEAST a recognition of the rights of these people who are being overcome and wiped out by governments around the world for various reasons. perhaps it can work to protect these people's rights when they are faced with a situation that aims to remove them in the future. i hope that it works as a platform to help further their growth and survival in this world. they have just as much a right to practice whatever way of life they believe in as everyone else in this world, and that should not be infringed upon because some country wants to destroy their land, and destroy their culture for economic gain. just because our countries are growing explosively does not mean that we have ANY right to take their land for our personal gain.

      does it occur to people that just because a xenophobe has no understanding or respect for the rights of indigenous people that that shouldn't stop indigenous people from receiving such things?

      --Diane



      • Re: UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

        Thanks for taking the time to politely and forcefully make the righteous argument diane.  People like you make IO so much better, especially when I don't have the patience to address ignorance and hate like this.


        • Re: UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

          Ignorance?  Hate?  Are you retarded? (oh I see you just want people to "sign" responses, not actually login- fine)
          Lemme guess- you're a college student or recent graduate- and you've been fed the bullshit about cultures needing to be preserved because... oh- well- there's no real reason is there- beyond "it's their tradition"...
          Guess what- that's not how you advance a society- you roll in and say "whoa there, you boys are doing some fucked up shit- hey look- we've figured out a better way to do it- see?"
          Giving "indigenous" (again, whatever the fuck that exactly means) peoples free reign in continuing their "culture" means everything from woman-stoning to clit-snipping to human-sacrifice to cannibalism.
          Creating a special class of people within a nation not subject to the usual laws of the nation is entirely counter to western civilization.

          -SS


          • Re: UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

            If you can't respect the fact that there are other ways to live than the way western civilization dictates, and if you don't believe that there is room for other cultures to thrive in our own societies, then there is really no point in debating with you because we're not going to agree, and I believe your ideas to be extremely harmful.


          • Julia



          • Emily



          • Julia



          • Julia



          • Emily



          • Julia



          • Erica



          • David



          • Erica



          • David



          • Mark



          • Mark



          • Mark



          • Erica



          • Emily



          • Mark



          • Emily



          • Erica



          • Erica



        • Mark



        • Mark



        • Julia



        • Julia



        • Mark



        • Mark



        • George



        • Mark



        • George



        • John



        • John



        • George



      • Re: UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

        Hi Diane- define "indigenous".


        • Re: UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

          i am no athropological authority so i'm going to go with merriam webster on this one and perhaps later i'll dig out some of my anthropology texts and refer back to them in this thread if i get the time

          1 : having originated in and being produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment <indigenous plants> <the indigenous culture>
          2 : INNATE, INBORN
          synonym see NATIVE

          it's a highly debateable term, yes, seeing as how people have traveled all over the world for millennia but that IS the most basic definition of it. i can't prescribe a set period of time necessary in order to be determined as indigenous but i'm sure that anthropologists have a pretty good grasp of it.

          when it comes to female circumcision i think the rights of women in those cultures ARE in fact protected under this declaration (there's a section defining protection of women and children from violence and i think we could easily deem female circumcision as violent).

          i echo kyle in saying that if you refuse to respect the rights of people to practice a way of life different than that of western culture then there's no point in even having this discussion. i suggest doing some real anthropological research, maybe consider taking an intro to cultural anthropology class and learn something about these people other than the stereotypical wildman practices you keep referring to (cannibalism, female circumcision, human sacrifices).

          take a look at the peaceful and amazing ju/hoansi/kung/bushmen of the kalahari desert and then try to say THEY don't deserve the right to maintain their way of life. they're quite possibly the most peaceful people to EVER live on the face of this planet. if they even really exist any longer... botswana has been trying to get them off their ancestral land for decades.

          ensuring human rights and protection of all peoples from violent and dangerous acts is a serious concern for all people and something anthropologists are greatly concerned with (as is evident in the case of sudanese female circumcision).



        • George



        • Julia



        • George



        • Julia



        • Erica



        • John



        • John



        • Mark



        • David



        • David



      • Julia



      • Erica



      • Julia



      • George



      • Julia



      • George



      • Nick



      • David



      • Nick



      • Nick



      • Nick



      • Nick



      • Julia



      • Erica



      • Julia



    • Re: UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

      So are you actually AFRAID of what might happen if indigenous peoples had rights? Indigenous people in the West have been subject to re-education camps, theft of land & property, forced resettlement and extermination, and you're STILL afraid if they had rights they'd threaten your white privilege? Don't worry, they won't.

      Hysterical slippery-slope arguments don't convince me, because 143 countries (where there really are people with the ability to reason, just like the almighty white-man can!) had no problem signing this. What do they see in it that America, Canada, Australia and NZ missed? Or shall we just dismiss these 143 countries because they musn't have the supreme mental prowess of the wonderous US of A, the pinnacle of civilization?

      Indigenous people have put up with enough abuse to deserve a lot more than a non-binding acknowledgement that they have rights, but since the US government throughout history has given us ample examples of how much respect they have for indigenous people, it's clear the government is simply following its own precedent here.


    • Erica



    • David



    • David



    • George



    • George



    • David



    • David



    • Julia



    • Julia



    • George



    • Mark



    • Mark



    • Mark



    • Julia



    • Julia



    • Mark



    • Erica



    • Mark



    • Erica



    • Mark



    • Grom



  • Re: UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

    Glad the US and others voted against this silliness.  Some people hear the words "rights" and "indigenous" and go into a rapture.  Can anyone define "indigenous" for us?  The Maoris came to NZ in the 1300's, and cannibalized the people living there. Now they are "indigenous?"  So, Europeans should be indigenous in the USA in a few years, right?


    • Re: UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

      Exactly why I ask people to identify themselves.  It's obvious your the same person posting over and over again.  You're free to post whatever you want but there's not point in engaging you in intelligent debate.  Hope you have a fun time on IO.


      • Re: UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

        Huh- I don't know who those other Anonymous posters are, but I assure you none of them is me. (no, I'm not going through the signup/login BS either)  And I'll simply concur with the first comment as it sums up basically everything I would say.  Really nice btw, refusing "intelligent debate" because someone doesn't sign their response?  Talk about a cop out...  


        • Re: UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

          So does "intelligent debate" only consist of ideas with which you agree? Although harsh, the anonymous writers do seem to make a point or two.


          • Re: UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

            They might make a point or two, but the fundemantals of their reasoning are so at odds with what I think is correct that it's not worth debating them.


            • http://shrinkurl.us/ZQl



            • http://shrinkurl.us/ZQl



        • Erica



        • Erica



        • Julia



        • George



        • George



        • David



        • David



        • David



        • Erica



        • David



        • David



        • David



        • Erica



        • David



        • George



        • Julia



        • George



        • George



        • Julia



      • Julia



      • Julia



      • Julia



      • Julia



      • David



      • David



      • Nick



      • Nick



      • Erica



      • Emily



      • David



      • Erica



      • Emily



      • Julia



      • Emily



      • Emily



      • John



      • Mark



      • John



      • Erica



      • Mark



      • Erica



      • http://shrinkurl.us/ZQl



      • http://shrinkurl.us/ZQl



      • Erica



      • Julia



      • Nick



      • Julia



      • Erica



      • Nick



    • Julia



    • Julia



    • Mark



    • George



    • Mark



    • George



    • Emily



    • Emily



    • Erica



    • David



    • Erica



    • David



    • John



    • John



    • Julia



    • Nick



    • John



    • Julia



    • Nick



    • John



    • John



    • Erica



    • John



    • Erica



    • Emily



    • Erica



    • Julia



    • Erica



    • Julia



    • Nick



    • Nick



  • Joosepi



  • Joosepi



  • Erica



  • John



  • Erica



  • Nick



  • Nick



  • John



  • Julia



  • Julia



  • Mark



  • Mark



  • David



  • George



  • George



  • David



  • Mark



  • Mark



  • John



  • John



  • John



  • John



  • Mark



  • Mark



  • Mark



  • Mark







search this blog