WCIP Indigenous Ideology and Philosophy Workshop II - National Aboriginal Conference Secretariat submmission "Some Reflections on Group Right Principles" and NCAI annex "Indigenous Ideology and Philosophy"
******************
A SIMPLE REQUEST
******************
Many of our files are unique and/or copyrighted by The Center For
World Indigenous Studies and The Fourth World Documentation
Project. All FWDP files may be reproduced for electronic
transfer or posting on computer networks and bulletin boards
provided that:
1. All text remains unaltered.
2. No profit is made from such transfer.
3. Full credit is given to the author(s) and the Fourth World
Documentation Project.
4. This banner is included in the document if being used as a
file on a BBS, FTP site or other file archive.
Thank you for your cooperation.
John Burrows
Executive Director
Center For World Indigenous Studies
()-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=()
||///////////////////////////////////||
||=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-||
|| ||
|| The Fourth World Documentation Project runs entirely on grants ||
|| and private donations. If you find this information service ||
|| useful to you in any way, please consider making a donation to ||
|| help keep it running. CWIS is a non-profit [U.S. 501(c)(3)] ||
|| organization. All donations are completely tax deductible. ||
|| Donations may be made to: ||
|| ||
|| The Center For World Indigenous Studies ||
|| ATTN: FWDP ||
|| P.O. Box 2574 ||
|| Olympia, Washington USA ||
|| 98507-2574 ||
|| Thank You, ||
|| CWIS Staff ||
|| ||
||=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-||
||///////////////////////////////////||
()=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-()
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: This file has been created under the loving care of ::
:: -= THE FOURTH WORLD DOCUMENTATION PROJECT =- ::
:: A service provided by ::
:: The Center For World Indigenous Studies ::
:: ::
:: THE FOURTH WORLD DOCUMENTATION PROJECT ARCHIVES ::
:: http://www.halcyon.com/FWDP/fwdp.html ::
:: THE CENTER FOR WORLD INDIGENOUS STUDIES ::
:: http://www.halcyon.com/FWDP/cwisinfo.html ::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
DOCUMENT: GROUPRT.TXT
NATIONAL ABORIGINAL
CONFERENCE SECRETARIAT
P.O. Box 259
Woden, ACT 2606
Telephone: Secretary General: 89 6035
General Inquiries: 89 6033
INDIGENOUS IDEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY
WORKSHOP II
In the World Council of Indigenous Peoples we have asserted
that indigenous peoples' ideological views are neither right
nor left in terms of occidental ideologiesm but rather our
views are separate and distinctly our own. We say we have
economic, cultural and political ideologies which have their
foundations in the ideas of our ancestors, in our own
civilizations which predate the present by thousands of
years. The purpose of this workshop is to formulate what we
shall know as the indigenous ideology in the present era.
Our own intellectual development will be reflected in this
document on subjects like community values, attitudes toward
our environment, the place humans occupy in this world,
economic concepts, political systems and our relationship to
other peoples in the world.
1. How do we trace the development of ideas within and among
our peoples?
2. What place does our spiritual life play in the life of
ideas?
3. How do our ideas determine our actions? Have these
actions succeeded?
4. What are the essential ideas which govern family and
community life?
5. What are the ideas which govern our views toward our
surrounding environment - our use of land and water -
these things which have been placed here - our
relationship to other living things?
6. What are our ideas toward the place all humans occupy in
this world? What spiritual values do we share?
7. What ideas do we share in the area of providing food,
comfort and help among our peoples - what economic
concepts are suited to indigenous values and needs?
8. What ideas do we draw from our ancestors and from our
present experiences which can guide us in our political
systems and our methods for governing our collective
actions?
9. What ideas do we share which can guide us in defining and
expressing our views regarding our relations to the other
peoples in this world?
SOME REFLECTIONS ON GROUP RIGHT
PRINCIPLES
ON INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP
Individual freedom is a part of the constitution of
many states, as a statement of respect for the individual as
a citizen and as a member of mankind. This kind of human
rights is intended to protect the individual against unjust
treatment of himself and other individuals. "Human rights",
as individual rights, form, therefore, a "natural"
limitation of individual freedom by allowing self-
realisation, and by prohibiting this from being used to harm
other individuals. These rights should be universal, without
limitation of state borders or power structure, except the
power maintaining the universal principles.
Individual freedom also includes the right to join and
leave groups such as associations, and other kinds of
organisations. "Groups" seem to be regarded as mere entities
which an individual may join or leave again, although
organised groups normally gain some kind of influence which
their members, as non-organised individuals, could not
acquire. But it is my impression that this kind of respect
for groups is not due to the "principle of group right", but
is primarily due to the potential power that the
organisations represent. By this I mean that the influence
of an organised group very often will depend upon its
potential power. "Power" may in this connection be regarded
as an ability to promote or damage the interests of a
counterpart. This need not be so peculiar. A member of a
non-organised group will, in a negotiating situation, often
have difficulty in claiming demands or promising anything on
behalf of his group, while a representative of an organised
group will have the authority to act on behalf of his
organisation.
Ethnic groups must deviate from the concept of "group"
mentioned before. They form PEOPLE, and their members cannot
normally join or leave them as they will. A member of a
people is born into it, and only those individuals on the
borders of the people may have the possibility of choosing
their own ethnic identity, if the legislation allows them
such a possibility. The members of a people have a mutual
origin and mutual identity, often characterised by mutual
area, mutual language and mutual culture, besides a mutual
system of social control. Even if one of these
characteristics should be lacking for an individual, the
others will mark his or her ethnic membership. Every
individual belongs to a people, and even though the world is
organised in states, it is populated by peoples.
States are populated by peoples. There may be states
with citizens belonging to a single people. But the majority
of states have a multiple ethnic population, often each
people with its own area. Normally there is one dominant
people and several dominated peoples. The dominated peoples
are normally called "minorities". This term may be
misleading, even if we define the term as "people without
the dominant influence within a state", because the term
"minority" in itself gives an association of numerical
evaluation, and although this may be true for many dominated
peoples, there are in fact "peoples without dominant
influence within a state" that form a numerical majority.
The terms "dominant" and "dominated" are used without
positive or negative connotation, and to express a
relationship in which the dominant society not only has
dominant political and economic influence, but besides has
cultural and linguistic prestige, and also has a tendency to
expand its norm system beyond the borders of its ethnic
area. A short historical review
In several European states with multiple ethnic
population, states were originally formed by kings for
peoples with their own ethnic area. They might then add the
adjacent areas by an agreement of receiving taxes from the
area. They might then add the adjacent areas by an agreement
of receiving taxes from the population, either by conquering
the area, or by protecting the inhabitants, against their
mutual enemies. The origin of such states seems to be based
on the rights of these peoples, and on the need for
protecting these rights. Even though the origin of some
states may be regarded as violation of some original rights
of the peoples, it seems to be accepted as protection
against further violation. The task of the states would then
be to protect the rights which in fact belonged to those
peoples. That these peoples payed taxes to the king
indicates that the king should protect the rights that
continuously belonged to the people.
As taxpayers, people may be called citizens. The state
(king) gained sovereignty over their area. Sovereignty
means, in this paper, both the right to protect the area
against other states (kings), and the right to make
regulations for the rights of the people and the
individuals. It does not mean land ownership, but among
other things, it means the right to decide the rules for
land ownership, in order to prevent such a right being used
to harm other citizens. It might sound unnecessary to stress
the differences between land ownership and sovereignty. But
in the states where the dominant people regard land
ownership only as PRIVATE (INDIVIDUAL) OWNERSHIP, while the
indigenous peoples maintain COLLECTIVE LAND OWNERSHIP, it
may be vital to stress this difference.
This may also be vital in the states in which the
dominant people was formed by immigrant groups. While for
the immigrants who came as individuals or families, maybe in
small groups, the immigration act itself motivates them to
be assimilated in the mainstream of the new society, the
case, is another for the original populations of these
areas. From time immemorial, the indigenous peoples lived
within the area, and formed peoples with peoples' rights.
The first immigrants in North America tried to respect the
Indian land ownership, in that they tried to buy land, and
made treaties. But later on many Indians were forced to
transfer their land to others, and were balked of any
satisfaction that alone might make the transfer of the
rights reasonable, According to the norms of the immigrants.
We may regard it as a historical fact. But it is also - seen
from the notion of collective ownership - an unjust action
that cannot be used as a model in our effort to re-evaluate
the principles. This mode of action can hardly be justified
by democratic processes of the majority society. Solidarity
with the members of the dominant society is demanded from
the indigenous peoples on the conditions of the dominant
majority. The kind of solidarity the dominant society
expects from its members towards the indigenous peoples will
normally again be on the conditions of the dominant society.
This demonstrates again that respect for groups also depends
upon the expedition of power. Dust and unjust principles may
be of no interest without power. This way of thinking may
have been intelligible in a period when a man might have had
a right if he could shoot faster than another. But is it
also valid in 1977?
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND GROUP RIGHTS
As individuals need to have their rights protected, the
group needs to protect its rights. As the state tries to
protect the right of the single person because the need for
justice between individuals is based on the principle of
individual rights rather than the right of the strongest
individual (or fastest gunman), the rights of the groups
must be protected by the state regardless of the power of
the different groups. Peculiarly enough, such a principle
does need to be stressed also in democratic societies,
because democracy is normally based on the will of the
majority, which may result in large groups dominating small
groups. Groups need, like individuals, regulation of the
relationship between them, and this must be stressed between
the different peoples within the same state, to prevent the
state from becoming an instrument of the dominant people
against the dominated peoples. In multiple ethnic states it
must be normal and reasonable that the government consists
alone or mainly of members of the dominant society, but this
can hardly justify the tendency to regard the state only as
the state of the dominant people, or the interests of the
state as those of the dominant people alone.
The dominant people often forget the ethnic
differences, partly because it is a rather convenient
attitude, and partly because they too often lack sufficient
imagination to understand that it is not in all cases a good
thing for the dominant people to be like them. It is,
therefore, important to tell people again and again that it
is useful to respect other groups despite the differences,
and that it is useful to respect the differences between the
groups. Without such a respect it may be impossible to
maintain the group rights without the use or the possibility
of the use of power.
Group rights as the rights of peoples include the right
of having own area, own way of life, own language, and own
system of social control. Like the principles of individual
rights, group rights are based on the idea that the rights
of a single group should not be used for violating the other
groups.
SOME PROBLEMS IN UNDERSTANDING THE IDEAS
We know that it is difficult to convince the
representatives of the dominant peoples of the need for
group rights parallel to individual rights. It may be due to
many different factors. I shall just mention a couple of
them.
Many representatives of the dominant people are
educated people in whose education the evaluation of the
rules ACCORDING TO THE NORMS OF THE DOMINANT PEOPLE played a
very significant role. In their evaluation of things,
signficant or insignificant, relevant or irrelevant, the
precedent in their own society is often the decisive
element, and the arguments from the other side are regarded
as irrelevant or unessential, if not completely negative. I
suppose that we have to accept that we have to play the game
of the dominant people. But if there is to be fair play, the
norms of the dominated groups ought to be respected as
principles equal to those of the dominant people.
Another factor is that the representatives of the
dominant groups have a great force in using the legislation
as their instrument. Their role is to protect the legal
system, which has to be respected, even though it normally
disregards the ethnic and cultural plurality of the
citizens. As citizens within a state, we need individual
protection by the state, and as members of different peoples
within the same state we need to have our group rights
protected. It is in fact a very simple principle. The
securing of a group's rights must not depend on its ability
to use violence, or its ability to harm other peoples,
either through the use of arms or through economic power.
It is the experience of too many indigenous peoples
that their rights are not sufficiently protected against the
wishes of the dominant people. This may be due to, among
other things, the fact that the dominant people also
consists of different fractions: different interest groups,
which try to compete with each other to enlarge their share
of the goods, may therefore regard the dominated peoples as
more fractions of the dominant people, acting as further
competitors.
SOME ASPECTS OF LAND OWNERSHIP RIGHTS
If we regard the "inviolable ownership right", which in
legislation is normally regarded as the private ownership
right, this consists of the right to decide over the object,
which depends on a "legal way of acquisitions". The "legal
way of acquisition" may be a way of converting a part of the
COLLECTIVE RESOURCES into a private family-owned possession,
e.g. by hunting, in which the hunter claims "private
ownership" by being the first to hit the animal with his
weapons, or by collecting berries from the plants and
putting them into the bags of one household. After the
acquisition, the ownership right includes decision rights,
e.g. concerning who may use the object and benefit from the
results of its use, and also the right to transfer the
ownership right to another person as gift or by sale.
Normally there are only three legal forms of acquisitions:
(1) by converting a collective resource into a privately
owned object before anybody else, (2) by agreement with or
wish of the former owner, (3) by inheritance. These three
forms of legal acquisition seem to be rather universal. Even
though the state legislation may regulate ownership rights
by limitations of the decision right and of the benefits
from the use of the object, the inviolability of the
ownership right is still valid, since no acquisition of
ownership right is legal, except by the three ways already
mentioned: conversion of a collective resource, by consent
of the former owner, and by inheritance, The single
exception from this rule may be expropriation on payment of
full compensation. In too many cases, the state claims
ownership of the land of the indigenous peoples with neither
their consent nor on payment of compensation; i.e. claims
which can hardly be legal even according to the norms of the
dominant people, and which can perhaps only be explained by
the power of the dominant people, or the powerlessness of
the dominated peoples.
We are aware of the problems connected with the
recognition of the collective ownership right. For many
indigenous peoples, the problem is connected the collective
ownership right, and that often members of the dominant
people will not regard the collective ownership as a serious
matter. It is not a part of their legislation, and it is not
formulated in their legal or political terms. The notion of
many members of the dominant people is that collective
ownership means "ownership by the state". This is
historically intelligible as originating from the notion of
the "crown land". But "crown land" is a concept from areas
with private land ownership. We have to respect it in the
areas where it is a part of the group rights. But the
dominant people have a tendency to expand their own
principles outside their own ethnic area.
The question must arise whether private ownership may
occur at all except as a utilisation of collective
ownership. Private ownership may be regarded as a means of
distribution of the goods in an area, i.e. utilisation of
the resources of a local group, which may be regarded as
utilisation of regional, ethnic, and lastly, universal
resources. It must be the basic principle, and therefore,
the natural limitation of the "groupship" must be the
natural limitation of the collective ownership at any level.
The basic principles must include the following:
(1) respect for the individual as a part of a group;
(2) respect for a group as an entity of individuals. 80th
parts are necessary if individual identity and group
identity are to be kept, and both parts are necessary if
individual freedom is not to be used to harm other
individuals: everyone has individual freedom as a part of a
group.
If we regard this as the basic principle, it should be
valid regardless of one's possibility or lack of possibility
of power demonstration, otherwise we must fear that one's
right will depend on one's power. Returning to the main
question, also people without means of power have ownership
rights to their own region.
Although any clear formulation of collective land
ownership in the areas of the indigenous peoples was
lacking, it is obvious that it was a part of their norm
system, and in fact had the same validity as private
ownership of individual objects or family possessions. The
principle seems to have been that the private ownership
right in general was a sort of utilisation of the collective
ownership. Therefore, it is meaningful to regard collective
ownership as the basic ownership principle.
If we regard family ownership, we observe that the
entire family under normal circumstances has a right to use
the mutually owned object WITHOUT OBLIGATION TO ASK FOR
PERMISSION, whether it is the dwelling or the food supply of
the family household, whole the head of the family has
decision right concerning changes, giving away, or necessary
rationing. In connection with family ownership, anyone
except members of the family has to obtain permission to use
the object. The right to use the object without permission
depends on co-ownership, and this is the same principle in
connection with the collectively-owned area.
In the legal terms of industrialised people, the norms
of the indigenous people, and especially what we call
"aboriginal rights" are characterised as "customary law".
This term is not quite suitable in several legislations.
Customary law may be explained by an example. If you go
across a field belonging to another man, he may prohibit
this, because you have no right to do so. cut if he protests
against it after not having protested against it for several
years, he can hardly stop you, because you have gained a
customary right to cross his field! For me, therefore,
"customary law" means that you may via custom gain a right
even though had no right from the beginning. This is not how
I understand "aboriginal rights." Indigenous peoples had
these rights from the beginning, and it must be rather the
immigrant dominant peoples who gained their rights through
"customary law", especially in the cases where the
indigenous peoples did not protest, either verbally or by
war.
Among many indigenous peoples, usufructuary rights give
prior right for certain households to use the resources of
certain localities. This may be regarded as a means of
reasonable distribution of the resources. The household in
question may, through the years, learn to utilise the local
possibilities, but on the other hand, the same household is
also interested in keeping the exploitation possibilities
intact through the years. It is possible that such prior
rights are the first step towards private ownership, and
prior rights may be inherited within the family. But
normally they are primarily part of the collective
ownership. If the household in question leaves the locality
for good, or if it disregards the exploitation norms of the
community, the prior right may revert collective use.
One of the main exploitation principles among the
indigenous peoples was avoidance of over-taxation of the
resources. This may be done through the migrating way of
life, by having hunting equipment with limited efficiency,
or by taboo rules that lengthen the time used on one
animal. Besides, it gave people a respect for life in
nature.
I do not want to agitate for inefficient tools or
experience hunger, and still more suffer from under-
nourishment. Some kind of economic development is needed,
but this need not bring about misuse of the resources,
destructive exploitation, or consumption in which the goal
of "progress" is comfort in it self.
ON RESPECT FOR NATURE.
In the original religions of many indigenous peoples,
the belief that human beings are thinking, acting and
growing individuals with souls or spirits is transferred to
animals and plants, which live and grow, and may have
influence upon our daily lives. Even the different phenomena
in nature, the sun and moon which run from east to west,
sunbeams which give warmth and growth, water which gives
life, rivers which run, snow which comes and disappears
again, volcanoes dangerous and noisy lightning, etc. were,
for our ancestors, and still for many of us, the natural
world, which exists as a balance between natural and
supernatural forces. The mightly nature was a real
environment that one had to accept. Through experience, and
through different rituals they learnt to live in harmony
with nature.
The religion of our ancestors was a kind of philosophy
that tried to give an explanation for the mysterious life as
the condition for the human communities. It was expressed
through myths and ceremonies, through beliefs and taboo
rules. It was rather easy for many missionaries to explain
it as a primitive way of thinking. They could give a
scientific explanation of the natural phenomena, and in
other cases they could easily by logical argumentation refer
to paradoxical myth stories as "nonsense". But the same
missionaries would hardly mention the paradoxical dogmas of
Christianity, e.g. "trinity" as "nonsense"; instead, it is
"incomprehensible for the human brain". It is rather easy to
find such parallel examples of "nonsense" and things
"incomprehensible for human brain". But it is not my
intention to attack Christianity. My intention is to justify
some of the advantages of the religious values of our
ancestors' beliefs.
If you build a system of arguments and conclusions on
the natural world through your experiences, where there may
be a sequence of several parallel evidences, and have,
besides, to build a similar row of arguments and
conclusions on the supernatural aspects of the mysterious
life, you must in the end have at least two sets of
worldviews, which are impossible to unite in a logical way.
But both may be necessary for your philosophy of the world,
so then: either you may accept both views without trying to
unite them, or as in Christianity, accept that they are
united in a way which is incomprehensible for the human
brain. The third possibility occurs in the natural sciences
as a sort of "complementarity", e.g. the question of energy
and substance, and in order to unite them you may be forced
to introduce a "fourth dimension". Without a dogma of
"incomprehensibility" or introduction of the "fourth
dimension" the dualistic view of life and nature needs
paradoxes. They are not "nonsense".
The belief that both animals and plants, and even other
natural phenomena, are regarded as having souls or spirits
has at least been referred to as "nonsense". But I suppose
that it was one of the most important elements in the
respect by many indigenous peoples for their environments.
It may be difficult to understand for many agriculturalists
that hunting people had, and still have, an enormous
respect for the living, and for life itself. Many people
today may find it ridiculous that our ancestors treated a
slain animal as an honoured guest, by giving it different
gifts, or by saying formulae or payers for it, or by making
their hunting equipment beautiful and attractive. Especially
the western agriculturalist may tell us that it would be
better to make efficient hunting equipment than to say
formulae for the killed animal. He might be right if it was
a question of killing as many animals as possible in as
short time as possible.
But these ceremonies were not only "means of hunting".
They also gave a regulation of the community life. Many of
them had a practical effect too, e.g. the old Inuit rule of
letting a polar bear caught in the winter time lie for 4-5
days, helped them to avoid trichinosis. Many such taboo
rules had really practical effects of this kind.
A western agriculturalist may misunderstand the hunting
ceremonies, in that he too often will connect them with the
efficiency of the hunting alone, whereas the main effect of
them may be the mental experience of the community involved.
In this way, the indigenous peoples realise that life taken
must be restored. It is necessary for the members of hunting
communities to kill animals, but it may also be vital for
them not to disturb the balance of the animal life.
Even if I speak especially about hunting peoples, it is
my impression that many indigenous agricultural peoples
share the same basic ideas concerning the balance of the
nature. The Inuit "Pinnga" or "Sila", "The Reason", that
allowed Inuit to hunt caribous in order to exist, but would
not allow them to kill more than they needed, seems to be
parallel to the "Corn Mother" and other deities who
protected both the human communities and their natural
environments, as well as the cultivated plants, domesticated
animals, etc.
Especially our ancestors lived in a world where
fluctuations in living conditions might be considerable, and
might in serious situations demand re-adaptation to the
changed conditions.
For several indigenous peoples, who today live within
states governed and controlled by people with another
identity and another culture, such fluctuations in the
natural conditions may be lessened, or their effects may be
of less importance. But today the technical power of the
industrialised communities has a much more destructive
effect than earlier, and this, together with a lack of
respect for the preservation of the natural environment is
becoming serious, and efficient technology often results in
considerable waste. The respect that the indigenous peoples
had for their natural environments, seems to be more
necessary the more efficient technology of industry becomes.
Respect for nature, and respect for our way of living may be
one of our messages.
THE QUESTION OF EQUAL CONDITIONS
Respect for group rights as well as respect for
individual rights is of course one of the ways in which we
can improve our possibilities for more influence upon our
own fate. But it is also a part of our way of thinking. Many
of us live in areas in which powerful groups from the
dominant society are interested.
The "principle of individual equality" may be used as
an instrument. Equality for the law is in fact a principle
that should protect weak and poor individuals from the
strong and rich ones. But it is often used in other
contexts. It may be used, and is often used by persons from
the dominant society to establish themselves in the area of
the dominated society, which may lack the economic capacity,
or education or experience to be able to start economic
activity themselves. We know from many cases that the lack
of ability of indigenous people because of these factors is
very often real. Nevertheless, we cannot prevent a person
from the established society from maintaining his right to
enforce his position in the name of equality. How can we in
fact accept such a "principle of equality", when we know the
difference in possibilities is real? - The principle of
equality is often used to keep or widen the differences.
Therefore, it is a question of whether equal
possibilities can be acquired, so long as we do not secure
special rights for the week groups, to enable the
differences to be lessened.
I know such a protection of the ethnic minorities may
be characterised by many people as a sort of "racism",
especially by persons from the dominant society. But we must
honestly ask ourselves whether this kind of protection is
racism or a protection against racism. It is my impression
that the answer will depend upon whether we regard the
citizens of a state only as individuals, or also as peoples.
I think it probable that such protection of weak
peoples may contribute to lessening the differences in
economic and social conditions, and in the distribution of
power. Contrasts in the distribution of goods will often
given tension and fear.
We cannot neglect the importance of those statemen who
try to smooth out the tensions between the different forces
in the service of peace in the world, and we cannot neglect
the immediate effect of disarmament negotiation. But I doubt
whether such efforts can create permanent peace. I doubt
whether tension and fear may be removed from the world
without a decisive lessening of differences in economic
possibilities, and increasing respect for group rights and
respect for the existence of ethnic groups as peoples.
The indigenous peoples represent many peoples, many
cultures, and also different ways of thinking. Out they
share the same experiences as people who politically,
economically, and culturally are dominated by other peoples.
Of course between the indigenous peoples there will be
different points of view even about many important things.
We cannot always agree. And we do not want to isolate us. We
need help, not only recognition, but also practical and
financial help. cut we may risk to meet well-intentioned
outside groups who offer a kind of help to factions of the
indigenous peoples in such a way that the possible influence
of them would be divided. Therefore, the strength of the
World Council of the Indigenous Peoples will depend upon its
ability to channellize the different internal points of view
into a unified attitude in our external points of view into
a unified attitude in our external relationship.
(Robert Petersen)
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS
INDIGENOUS IDEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY
A Position Paper
Prepared by the National Congress of American Indians for
the World Council of Indigenous Peoples General Assembly III
- Canberra, Australia - 27 April to 2 May, 1981
OVERVIEW
Indigenous peoples are politically, and culturally
distinct from all other nationalities of peoples. As peoples
they constitute individual nationalities where customs,
language, heritage and historical origins are shared as
common characteristics of the population. An indigenous
nation may be made up of many communities, families or
tribes which constitute a diversification of common customs,
language, heritage and historical origins. These nations
have existed for thousands of years in territories which in
recent times have been overrun and occupied by alien peoples
from other parts of the world.
The Indigenous nations have been surrounded and
fragmented by these invading aliens during the last four
hundred years. They have been subjugated by the alien
peoples and forced to deny their own nationality, and
instead adopt the nationality of the invading aliens. By
creating and then imposing their own political systems on
indigenous nations, the alien peoples have eroded and in
many instances destroyed the national identity of many
Indigenous nations.
TERRITORIAL FRAGMENTATION
While many Indigenous nations continue to exist they
have had their territories and peoples seriously fragmented
by the forced placement of indigenous communities, families
or tribes onto small parcels of land sometimes referred to
as reservations, reserves, municipalities or conservation
areas. Whole nations of indigenous peoples have been
geographically divided into enclaves,which are neither
economically viable nor conducive to dynamic cultural and
political development. Where the fragmentation of indigenous
nations has occurred communities, families and tribes have
been"forced into economic and political dependence on a
surrounding and often dominating alien nation of people.
ECONOMIC DISLOCATION
Though many Indigenous nations have been dispersed and
segregated into individual communities, tribes and
confederations of tribes through geographical dislocation
other indigenous nations remain intact geographically, but
they suffer under pressures of economic and social
dislocation. Their economic institutions have been inundated
and largely replaced by western cash economic systems. The
western or occidental cash economic systems are controlled
and manipulated by state governments, which exclude direct
indigenous political participation. Many of these
governments are former colonial governments which achieved
independence from western European states. These former
colonial governments have become neo-colonial governments
super-imposing their institutions over indigenous nations.
In many of these post colonial states the Indigenous
population is in the majority.
While geographic integrity is largely maintained the
Indigenous populations do not control the use of primary
natural resources, lands and water. The means to control raw
materials, land and the economy is often forcefully denied
Indigenous populations, either through military intervention
or through social and political intervention. Many
Indigenous nations suffer from exploitation from a minority
of aliens who use violence and intimidation as a means to
maintain control over the Indigenous peoples. Indigenous
national identity is suppressed so the minority can benefit
from indigenous labor and indigenous resources.
POLITICAL DIVISION
Finally, Indigenous nations have been divided by the
imposition of colonial territorial boundaries. Once the
colonies from Europe established a foothold in Indigenous
national territories they severed colonial ties with the
European kingdoms to form new nation-states. The boundaries
established between colonies became new national boundaries
often running through indigenous national territories.
Despite efforts to prevent the political division of their
homelands Indigenous nations are now divided by boundaries
super-imposed over their territories often by as many as
four nation-states. Such political division and annexation
of indigenous territories by the new nation-states has
weakened the Indigenous nations economically, politically,
culturally and institutionally. By virtue of political
division, portions of indigenous nations have been reduced
to the status of minority populations under the powers of a
nation-state or refugees in their own lands.
ALTERNATIVES FOR INDIGENOUS NATIONS
In all of the circumstances described above indigenous
populations have had their national identity fragmented and
their economic, cultural and political institutions
suppressed by an invading alien population. Having their
economic and political strength neutralized the Indigenous
populations have been forced to deny their own national
identity, their own history, languages and cultural
development so that these things can be replaced through the
adoption of the alien history, language, culture and
institutions, Forced assimilation or slow staged
assimilation have been the policies of all nation-states
regarding Indigenous nations. The final objective is to
eliminate all Indigenous nations.
For more than four hundred years Indigenous nations
have been waging a kind of 'cold war' against the intrusion
of colonies and nation-states that has occasionally flared
into violent confrontations. Within this time more than 28
million Indigenous people have been destroyed either by
direct confrontation, disease or the results of social and
cultural dislocation. For the Indigenous nations the options
for survival have been severely limited by the on rush of
the invading nation-states. Whole Indigenous nations or
their fragments have moved into less hospitable territories,
accepted violent confrontation, or accepted assimilation
into the nation-state.
Two other options have more recently been exercised by
various Indigenous nations: redevelopment of the Indigenous
nation internally while renewing global recognition of a
national identity (national autonomy) or pursuing a course
of action under trusteeships with a nation-state, where
fragments of the Indigenous nation assert internal
sovereignty while adjusting to slow assimilation into the
nation-state. These latter options have the greatest
potential for the survival of Indigenous nations or the sub-
parts of Indigenous nations: communities, tribes and
families. Under these two options Indigenous nations have
the greatest possibility for reviving their own economic,
political and cultural dynamic. The essential reality is
that unless Indigenous nations reassert their national
identity then the remnants of their national existence will
not survive.
REBUILDING THE INDIGENOUS NATIONAL IDENTITY
The major influences which have caused the decline of
Indigenous nations have been the loss of control over
national territory and raw materials, the loss of control
over the indigenous economy and the loss of control over
cultural change. These three elements of national existence
have one thing in common: control within the nation. The
nation-states which have sought to destroy indigenous
national identity have consistently worked to undermine
indigenous national control over territory, the economy and
cultural change. To reverse this trend fragments of
Indigenous nations must first politically reestablish the
bonds which held the nation together and while so doing
define and implement an economic and political alternative
to the nation-state as the provider to Indigenous peoples.
This means establishing Indigenous national governments
which institute measures to create inter-community or inter-
tribal economic dependence. This will require establishing a
national indigenous currency for economic exchange. A
fundamental principle for rebuilding indigenous national
identities is that the indigenous population must have an
overriding commitment to the idea of the nation; they must
be committed to the idea that economic hardship must be
suffered so that the indigenous nation can systematically
withdraw from the western monetary system at least long
enough to establish the indigenous alternative economy. The
indigenous alternative economy must, of necessity, be
initially based on subsistence, indigenous labor and
indigenous raw materials.
A second principle which must guide the rebuilding of
indigenous national identities is that indigenous languages
and cultural practices must be revived to provide
alternative to the western system of assimilation.
A third principle essential to rebuilding Indigenous
nations is that re-occupying indigenous territories through
reversed colonization must be systematically planned and
implemented over time.
A fourth principle is that Indigenous nations assert
their own standards for development and reject the standards
established by the alien nation-states. This principle must
be implemented through the establishment of indigenous
educational and communications institutions which are not
dependent upon the nation-state for their authority or the
nation-state's economy.
A fifth principle is that diversity within the
Indigenous nation is its major strength and its principle
source for renewal. This diversity must be politically
focussed on the achievement of national goals: reclaiming
national territories, the full participation of all
Indigenous citizens in national decisions, the institution
of indigenous culture and language, and the institution of a
national economy established to insure the maximum and
equitable distribution of goods and services for the benefit
of all Indigenous citizens.
The sixth principle which must guide national renewal
is that all raw materials within an indigenous territory
must first have a direct benefit to the Indigenous citizens
before external interests are permitted to gain access to
these materials for their use. The principle also applies to
indigenous labor. Such labor must be provided first to the
nation for the collective benefit before it is offered to
external interests. In both instances the Indigenous
population must be made ready to defend these resources and
their labor against overt or covert efforts by nation-states
to gain access to these sources of wealth.
The seventh principle is that the political and
security interests of the Indigenous nations must be
preserved against the interests of the nation-states.
TRUSTEESHIP: POLITICAL ASSOCIATION BETWEEN INDIGENOUS
NATIONS AND NATION-STATES
Many fragmented or divided Indigenous nations lack
sufficient political integration to act in a unified way.
This weakness need only be temporary if the strongest parts
of the nations assume the responsibility for rebuilding the
nation. During the period of rebuilding (again a temporary
condition) Indigenous nations must maintain or establish a
formal political association with a nation-state. Such
arrangements as trusteeships or protected territorial status
have long been methods for protecting weakened nations. It
is essential that such bilateral relationships are
understood as temporary arrangements. In terms of Indigenous
nations, such arrangements are quite common. Though common,
they have been found to be quite dangerous as well. The
protecting nation-states has often been shown to be far more
interested in assimilating the Indigenous nation politically
and/or culturally than it has sought to insure the political
and economic development of the Indigenous nation.
Several principles must guide Indigenous nations as
they enter into or maintain trusteeship relations with a
nation-state:
The first principle is that the arrangement is only
temporary, and the reason for the protective arrangement is
to insure the dynamic political and cultural development of
the Indigenous nation.
The second principle is that the Indigenous nation or
its several parts (tribes, communities, families) has an
inherent sovereignty to regulate and control its internal
affairs without the nation-state interference.
The third principle is that it is the duty of the
protecting nation-state to preserve, protect and guarantee
the Indigenous nation's rights and property from external
encroachments. It has a further duty to aid the Indigenous
nation in its efforts to achieve political and economic
self-determination - a full measure of indigenous self-
government.
The fourth principle is that when the Indigenous nation
is satisfied that it can decide its own political future it
must be permitted to choose continued political association
with the nation-state, full independence as a political
state in its own right or political absorption into the
protecting nation-state. The essential point is that the
Indigenous nations must choose the form of political
existence that best suits its needs.
FINAL REMARK
The ultimate goal of any nation of people is either to
survive as a distinct political entity or to dissolve and
disappear. For Indigenous nations the alternatives are
national renewal, fragmentation and continued dependence on
nation-states or dissolution and assimilation into nation-
states. The opportunity to reform nation-states does not
exist. The only opportunity is to reverse the trends which
threaten Indigenous national destruction by reasserting
national identity.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
To have a current Center For World Indigenous Studies Publication
Catalogue sent to you via e-mail, send a request to
jburrows@halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/FWDP/cwiscat.html
Center For World Indigenous Studies
P.O. Box 2574
Olympia, WA U.S.A.
98507-2574
FAX: 360-956-1087
OCR Provided by Caere Corporation's OmniPage Professional