Showing posts with label colonialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label colonialism. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

A giant statue of Christopher Columbus has found a new home in PR

For discussion of this piece, please see the Indigenous Caribbean Network


•••••••

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico

A giant statue of Christopher Columbus has found a home after years of sitting in pieces in a park in the Puerto Rican city of Catano.

The city paid US$2.4 million to bring the 310-foot statue to Puerto Rico ten years ago, but then couldn't raise the extra cash needed to erect it.

Now, Catano Mayor Wilson Soto says port management company the Holland Group has agreed to take the disassembled, bronze and steel statue off his hands.

The company plans to install it in the western city of Mayaguez, where it runs the port. The town is set host the Central American and Caribbean Games in July 2010.

600 Ton Statue of Columbus (1998 article)

For discussion of this piece, see the Indigenous Caribbean Network

•••••••

By MIREYA NAVARRO
Published: December 21, 1998

Police Officer Adan Vargas Maldonado tried to picture what a 30-story-tall bronze statue of Christopher Columbus would look like.

''I don't imagine it beautiful, but attractive, yes,'' he said as he kept watch on the mammoth head and other statue parts, strewn about in a park, awaiting assembly. ''It'll be something supernatural for Puerto Rico.''

Such lukewarm views are an improvement over the reaction in almost every American city that has considered but rejected the statue by Zurab K. Tsereteli, the Russian sculptor who gave it to the United States as a gift of friendship in the early 1990's.

In South Florida, cities like Miami Beach and Fort Lauderdale passed on erecting the 600-ton monument because of its size and the costs involved, about $25 million for shipping and assembling. In Columbus, Ohio, which debated adding the statue of Columbus at the helm of a ship to its other memorials in honor of the explorer, some nicknamed it ''Chris Kong,'' and American Indians said it glorified someone who represented ''500 years of genocide.''

But where some see a colossal headache, others see a potential moneymaker. The statue is about to settle down in Catano, a city of 36,000 better known for flooding, industrial pollution and playing ugly duckling to San Juan, its neighbor across San Juan Bay, but whose leaders expect soon to blossom as an international tourist attraction.

Plans call for the statue, which would rise here 295 feet above sea level, to become the centerpiece of a waterfront tourism complex, which would also feature a pedestrian mall, restaurants, shops and boutiques, inspired by Epcot Center in Orlando, Fla. Proponents say the complex, a short ferry ride from the cruise ships that anchor at San Juan Harbor, could draw 500,000 visitors a year.

''This is going to put Catano on the map of the world,'' said Sergio Cordero, a Miami consultant who is manager of the statue project here. ''People will recognize it like they recognize the Eiffel Tower or the Statue of Liberty.''

Not everyone in Catano thinks it will be money well spent, given the city's municipal problems, but officials are trying to win people over by focusing on the future.

The unlikely but impressive journey from Russia to Catano of the monument titled ''Birth of the New World'' began last February, when Anibal Marrero, the vice president of the Puerto Rico Senate, heard that the statue needed a home. Mr. Marrero, whose district includes Catano, said he thought it fitting that the gift be given to Puerto Rico, an American territory on which, unlike the mainland, Columbus actually set foot during his second voyage in 1493. (Puerto Rico's national anthem includes the lines: ''When to its beaches Columbus arrived, with admiration he cried: 'Oh! Oh! Oh! This is the pretty land I'm looking for.' '')

Senator Marrero, who said the statue honored the man's daring spirit rather than his conquest, said he also envisioned new jobs and an economic bonanza for Catano. The city has one of the most majestic waterfront views on the island and is already the site of a popular tourist attraction, the Bacardi rum plant. But it does have problems, Mr. Marrero said, including an unemployment rate of about 13 percent and a disproportionate number of public housing projects.

After enlisting the support of Catano's Mayor, Edwin Rivera Sierra, who earmarked $3 million to bring the statue's parts to the island, the two officials put a project team together and exchanged visits with Mr. Tsereteli, whose large-scale art is found all over Moscow and in cities like New York.

Mr. Tsereteli had presented scale models of the statue to both President Bush and President Clinton and, last September, to the Organization of American States, on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.

The statue depicts Columbus standing at the historically inaccurate wheel of his ship (maritime historians say ships from Columbus's day steered by a bar directly connected to the rudder), his right arm raised in a greeting. Three sails snap in the wind behind him while the three caravels are positioned on a map of the New World at the base.


The statue arrived here in more than 2,500 pieces, some from St. Petersburg, Russia, and some from the United States, where the 11-ton head had unceremoniously languished for six years in a Fort Lauderdale warehouse after South Florida turned the statue down. By contrast, when the head got here last October, a welcoming delegation from Catano was waiting at the dock.

''I feel like a child receiving a gift from Santa Claus,'' Mayor Rivera Sierra, whose statue-related exploits have been the subject of both ridicule and song, told The San Juan Star as he wiped away tears.

Many of the Mayor's constituents, however, are extremely angry over the statue's cost, which officials plan to cover through a $30 million private bond issue. The officials say Catano would only profit, and any expenses related to the statue would be reimbursed, but residents wonder why a monument is the focus when many of their streets still flood every time it rains and some neighborhoods lack sewage hookups.

''That money should be used for necessities, like more hospital services, more police officers,'' said Rafael Roman, 84, a Catano native who was talking with friends one recent evening in the town plaza. ''That statue is not going to resolve anything sitting there. It's throwing taxpayers' money into the trash can.''

Another Catano resident, Luis Ortiz, 47, said, ''We're just praying Catano doesn't sink.''

But if visits to the park where the statue pieces rest under 24-hour guard are any indication, Catano got itself a hit. Officer Vargas Maldonado said visitors from all over the island had already come looking for ''la cabeza de Colon'' -- the head of Columbus.

One recent afternoon, several parents with children stopped by. ''It's a well-done job,'' said Marco Prieto, 8, who visited with his father and two brothers. ''The Mayor has shown great intelligence.''

''The nose has holes and everything,'' his 12-year-old brother, Giovanni, reported excitedly.

The statue has another enthusiastic ally in Gov. Pedro J. Rossello.

''I just picture an imposing structure at the entrance of San Juan Bay which can be seen by air, sea and land and which will be a landmark in United States territory where Christopher Columbus actually landed,'' the Governor said.

Assembly by the sculptor and a crew of about 50 Russians is expected to start in mid-1999, pending environmental and other permits. Officials say they had to rush the transportation of the statue before all studies were completed because of the fear that political instability in Russia might prevent a move.

Unveiling is scheduled for the anniversary of the first sighting of the New World, Oct. 12, 2000.

''It's a beautiful monument,'' Mayor Rivera Sierra said in an interview on Thursday. ''I have no doubt it's going to be a success.''

Monday, August 11, 2008

"Name that Scientist!"

First posted at Open Anthropology:

Imagine, 2008, and some foreigner travels to Barbados, and right under Barbadian noses he picks up the “world’s smallest snake,” known to native Barbadians since there have been native Barbadians, and he proclaims — without a metal helmet, bible, and cross — that he has discovered the snake, and that he will name it. The man clearly has balls, because he also decided to name the creature after his wife. S. Blair Hedges then says the naming is to establish its “genetic profile.” Apparently now his aim is to drive his wife into a murderous rage.

While some local academics tried to hush up the very negative local reactions to this latest episode of scientific imperialism (it’s no surprise that they would do so, given their dependence on academic networks owned and controlled within the dominant seats of Western power), Barbadians are clearly right to be critical.

What kind of world is it where one people gets to name the world for the rest of the world?

What kind of world is it where words from one particular, dead, European language are granted exclusive dominance in the name of “science”?

The answer: it’s a 2008 world, hardly different from a 1492 world.

So name that scientist!

▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼

Saturday, February 16, 2008

The Australian Apology to Aboriginals: News Extracts

Feb. 12, 2008, Associated Press
Australia apologizes to Aborigines
Prime minister acknowledges the mistreatment of the 'Stolen Generations'


CANBERRA, AUSTRALIA — Aborigines organized breakfast barbecues in the Outback, schools held assemblies and giant TV screens went up in state capitals today as Australians watched a live broadcast of their government apologizing for policies that degraded its indigenous people.

In a historic parliamentary vote that supporters said would open a new chapter in race relations, lawmakers unanimously adopted Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's motion on behalf of all Australians.

A day of symbolism
....Aborigines were invited for the first time to give a traditional welcome Tuesday at the official opening of the Parliament session — symbolic recognition that the land on which the capital was built was taken from Aborigines without compensation.

The apology is directed at tens of thousands of Aborigines of the "Stolen Generations," who were forcibly taken from their families as children under now abandoned assimilation policies.

Years of divisive debate
More than 1,000 people gathered at two giants screens outside Parliament House and watched Rudd's speech in silence, many waving Australian and Aboriginal flags. Applause broke out occasionally, but mostly they listened intently....

The apology ended years of divisive debate and a decade of refusals by the previous conservative government that lost November's elections....

Rudd ruled out compensation — a stance that helped secure support for the apology among the many Australians who believe they should not be held responsible for past policies, no matter how flawed.

▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲

Feb. 12, 2008, Associated Press
Australia hails symbolic turning point
Native Aborigines celebrate apology from government


CANBERRA, Australia — Aborigines in white body paint danced and sang traditional songs in Australia's national Parliament today in a historic ceremony many hoped would mark a new era of race relations in the country.

The ceremony was the government's symbolic recognition, for the first time, that the land on which Australia's capital was built was once owned by Aborigines, and was taken away without compensation by European settlers.

[see a video of the ceremony in THE TELEGRAPH of London:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1137942530/
bclid1155254697/bctid1414240726
]

On Wednesday [13 February 2008], Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will offer a formal apology to thousands of Aborigines who were taken from their families as children under now discredited assimilation policies abolished in 1970 — an act that many people view as a vital step toward reconciling black and white Australians....

With faces and bodies white and a digeridoo — an ancient wind instrument — blowing a deep drone in the background, Aborigines of the Ngunnawal tribe called on their ancestor spirits to welcome newcomers to Parliament in a ceremony held in a hall of the national legislature.

Rudd accepted the gift of a traditional "message stick" of welcome from Ngannawal elder Matilda House.

"A welcome to country acknowledges our people and pays respect to our ancestors, the spirits who created the lands," said House, who crossed the hall's marble floor barefoot and draped in a kangaroo pelt cloak to give her speech. "This allows safe passage to all visitors."

Rudd has invited more than 100 Aboriginal leaders to attend Wednesday's apology speech, and other dignitaries from business leaders to former prime ministers were also due to attend. A giant television screen was being set up outside Parliament House so people who could not fit into the legislature could watch the proceedings.

A big screen was also going up in Sydney so people could watch the national live broadcast of Rudd's speech. Smaller, more private events were planned across the country.

▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲

Feb. 12, 2008
Formal government apologies
By The Associated Press

— Some of the formal apologies issued by governments around the world to oppressed or victimized groups:

► 2008: Australia's Parliament apologizes for past government policies that "inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss" on Aborigines who were taken from their families under now discredited assimilation programs between 1910 and 1970.

► 1998: Canada apologizes to its native peoples for past acts of oppression, including decades of abuse at federally funded boarding schools whose goal was to sever Indian and Inuit youths from their culture and assimilate them in white society.

► 1992: South African President F.W. de Klerk apologizes for apartheid, marking the first time a white leader in the country expressed regret for the system of legalized segregation that allowed 5 million whites to dominate 30 million blacks.

► 1990: The Soviet Union apologizes for the murder of thousands of imprisoned Polish officers shot during World War II and buried in mass graves in the Katyn Forest.

► 1988: The U.S. Congress passes a law apologizing to Japanese-Americans for their internment during World War II and offering $20,000 payments to survivors.

► 1951: West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer acknowledges the suffering of the Jews in the Holocaust and the following year, Germany agrees to pay reparations to Israel. In 1990, the then East German Parliament issues an apology to Israel and all Jews and others who suffered.

▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲

Aborigines Plan to Sue Australia

Friday, February 15, 2008

CANBERRA, Australia(AP)

Representatives for Australian Aborigines confirmed plans Friday to launch the first compensation lawsuits since a landmark government apology earlier this week for past abuses.

The cases, details of which were not released because they had not yet been filed, would be the first since Parliament formally apologized Wednesday to tens of thousands of Aborigines who were taken from their families as children under now discredited assimilation policies.

An activist and a lawyer representing some members of the so-called "Stolen Generations" of Aborigines said Friday as many as 40 compensation claims were being prepared in Victoria state.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has ruled out setting up a compensation fund for victims of the policies, which lasted from 1910 until the 1970s, and legal experts say the apology does not strengthen chances of compensation being won through the courts.

Several cases have been filed in the past but most have failed. Lawyers say proving the harm inflicted by the policies in a legal sense is extremely difficult.

"The legal landscape is no different to what it was yesterday or will be tomorrow," said Hugh Macken, president of the New South Wales state Law Society, said in response to Wednesday's apology.

Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard reiterated Friday that the government would not offer compensation to head off court action.

"We have said no to compensation," Gillard told Fairfax Radio Network.

State governments have taken a similar stance, fighting compensation claims that have been lodged in the courts.

Lawyer Jack Rush said he was representing Aborigine Neville Austin, but declined to discuss specifics of the case. Austin also declined to comment.

A newspaper reported Friday that Austin intends to sue the state of Victoria for unspecified damages, alleging he was taken by authorities in 1964 from a hospital where he had been admitted as a 5-month-old baby with a chest infection.

He then lived in foster homes and orphanages until he turned 18, the Herald Sun newspaper reported.

His cousin, Lyn Austin, head of the state advocacy group Stolen Generations Victoria, told Australian Broadcasting Corp. that dozens of lawsuits were pending.

An estimated 100,000 children were forcibly taken from their parents in an effort to make them grow up like white Australians.

Aborigine Bruce Trevorrow was awarded $700,000 in damages and interest this month from the South Australia state government. He was taken from a hospital without his parents' knowledge 50 years ago.

Australia's smallest state, Tasmania, is the only government to establish a compensation fund for Aborigines.

The state government announced last month it had paid 84 forcibly removed children and 22 of their descendants.

There are now about 450,000 Aborigines in Australia's population of 21 million. They are the country's poorest group, with the highest rates of unemployment and illiteracy. Their life expectancy is 17 years shorter than that of other Australians.

▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲

Australian apology to native people sets high bar for Canada: AFN
Thursday, February 14, 2008
CBC News

The national chief of the Assembly of First Nations says the Canadian government should match an apology Australia has made to its aboriginal people....

AFN national chief Phil Fontaine said he hopes the Canadian government will make a similar move.

"It's quite a statement. It's of great significance — monumental. It's a special moment for the country. It's inspirational and sets a very high standard," Fontaine said.

"We hope that Canada's apology that was promised in the recent speech from the throne will be as significant and as full as sincere as the Australian government's apology."

The federal government's last speech from the throne, delivered in October, indicated Prime Minister Stephen Harper would launch a truth and reconciliation commission into Canada's aboriginal schools, and "use this occasion to make a statement of apology to close this sad chapter in our history."....

In 1998, the Canadian government issued a "statement of reconciliation" which recognized and apologized to people who experienced physical and sexual abuse at residential schools. The statement was part of an action plan made in response to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which called for extensive changes in the relationship between aboriginals, non-aboriginals and governments in Canada.

Fontaine described the 1998 statement as a "statement of regret, rather than a full and sincere apology."

▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲

THE HINDU
Thursday, 14 February, 2008

Britain should also apologise to Australian Aborigines

Melbourne (PTI): Britain should follow its former colony Australia's example by apologising to Aborigines as it bore "heavy historic responsibility" for policies which led to many children being forcefully taken away from their parents, a leading human rights lawyer has said.

According to prominent human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson, Britain should also endorse the apology because English intellectuals had inspired the policy of seizing the children.

Robertson said Britain bore a "heavy historic responsibility" for the stolen generations and needed to apologise, the Herald Sun reported.

He said the policy of removing indigenous children from their families was based on the theories of English eugenics intellectuals, who believed aboriginality to be a degenerate trait and should be bred out.

▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲

Text of the Australian Government's Apology to Aboriginals

This is the main text of the motion presented to the Australian Parliament:

"Today we honor the indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

"We reflect on their past mistreatment.

"We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations — this blemished chapter in our nation's history.

"The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia's history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.

"We apologize for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.

"We apologize especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.

"For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.

"To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.

"And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.

"We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation."
▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼

Monday, November 26, 2007

"NZ anti-terrorism laws branded incoherent after raid fiasco"

::Thanks to Tony Castanha for alerting us to this article::

From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) at:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/18/2094044.htm

The future of New Zealand's controversial terrorism suppression laws is in doubt, after authorities ruled that none of those arrested in last month's raids on Maori communities will face terrorism charges.

Solicitor-General David Collins QC says the "overly complex and incoherent" legislation means the law cannot be used to prosecute in any of the 12 cases he was reviewing following the raids.

Meanwhile, there are calls for the Police Commissioner to resign over heavy-handed tactics meted out to Maori terrorism suspects.

October 15th 2007 will be remembered as the day the 'war on terror' reached Whakatane.

Heavily armed tactical response police wearing balaclavas set up roadblocks in the Bay of Plenty boondocks and searched vehicles and photographed their occupants.

The Tuhoe tribe have since called in Peter Williams QC, who believes they have a good case against police for breaching their civil rights.

"I may say that there has been terrorism, but the terrorism has emanated from the police, not from anybody else," he said.

Mr Collins agrees that the evidence was insufficient to justify this heavy-handed approach. He also says the anti-terrorism laws themselves are deficient and in urgent need of redrafting.

"I have advised the commissioner that I am unable to authorise the prosecutions that have been sought under the Terrorism Suppression Act," he said.

Mr Williams says that is just the start.

"I think the police position is that they have used the Terrorism Act excessively, particularly in opposing bail, and possibly leading the people of New Zealand to think that there was terrorism by these people," he said.

"That has now been belied by the Solicitor-General in a decision that I think is adroit, and I think is objective, and I think a very wise decision.

"What should happen now, as I understand it, is that these people should be released on bail and their particular cases should be dealt with according to law."

Toi Iti, the son of high-profile Maori sovereignty activist, Tame Iti - who is now applying for release on bail - says he is relieved at the dramatic turn of events.

"Because I think just having the association with the word 'terrorism' and all of the connotations that come with that, with the terrorist acts that happen globally around the world, to have that associated with your family and your name has a huge effect," he said.


Innocent people affected

But for police, it's a humiliating backdown from what they claim was an imminent threat to national security. Police Commissioner Howard Broad now concedes that a lot of innocent people got caught up in the dragnet.

"They're clearly hurt, they're clearly distressed," he said.

"The people of Tuhoe particularly feel like that this operation was directed at them.

"I've got some work to do to build bridges there and I acknowledge that.

"But in terms of this being a serious risk, I stand exactly behind what I did, and I expect the people of New Zealand would support me in that."

Maori political leaders like Hone Harawira say that is just not good enough.

"He announced on the first day, 'terrorism', and he has not been able to prove it," he said.

"He employs Kaitakawaenga, Maori police officers who work in places like Ruatoki.

"He had the opportunity 18 months ago to say, 'Guys, I think there's something going on in here. Get in there and find out.' It could have been all over and done with inside two or three weeks."

Instead, Mr Harawira says, the Police Commissioner did not inform the local Maori police officers.

"The boss of that operation, of that unit, the Maori Liaison Officers, wasn't even told until the operation had started," he said.

"[Commissioner Broad] said himself on day one, 'I stake my reputation on it'. He's blown it, he should go.


Slight on Tuhoe community

The Tuhoe tribe now thinks it is time for police to start listening to their own Maori Liaison Officers and apologise for the slight on their community.

Mr Williams says it was effectively branded a terrorist enclave.

"There's a lot of ill-feeling at the present moment, there's a lot of anger, their mana has been affected," he said.

Mana is a supernatural life force of power or authority.

Mr Williams says there has been a series of illegal acts by the police.

"It is time now, in my humble opinion, for a reconciliation, for the police to apologise and for the police to make recompense, so that this can be amended and the mana of the police as well, restored."

But others, like Mr Harawira, suggest the incident has put relations between police and Maoris back 100 years.

"How dare they arrest Tame Iti! What are the charges that he is leading a terrorist organisation? This is bullshit!" he said.

___________

Editor's note: The fact that the "war on terror" is being regularly visited upon those least connected with anything to do with Sept. 11, 2001, and being deployed in countries that were not targeted by Al Qaida, it is not surprising that the national security state is shown to be the normal state of affairs. Immigrants, almost all Muslims, Indigenous Peoples, have been the more immediate targets of this new colonial war, and what their experience should be telling everyone else is quite important: that the Italian political philosopher, Giorgio Agamben, was right when he he argued that states of exception, emergency rule, surveillance, national security, all of these combined consistently shape and constitute rule by states everywhere. The real "terror" we have to be worried about has always been, and continues to be, state terror. Here in Canada the face of state terror is shown immediately and automatically whenever a crowd of indigenous protesters assemble--police forces almost instantaneously appear, as if the mere fact of protest, or an indigenous gathering, were somehow a public safety issue.

Sunday, November 25, 2007

On "Native Terrorism": A Reader Responds

::I am thankful for receiving the following message, which was posted in response to another post on this blog ("More Hysteria Over the 'Native Terrorist'")::


Hegemonic Post-Colonial Discourse (Contemporary Colonization)

What is terrorism? What does it mean to act in the name of peace, or to find arms in places where they don't exist? Are they copying hegemonic discourse? All of these questions are valid and apply to violations that many people of the world suffer, above all indigenous people.

In my opinion, when culture is managed irresponsibly, and we see others judged in an irresponsible way, with no evidence, with comments that are racist and which are placed in a context as if they were made by wise elders, claiming things such as "I decide if you are worthy of your culture or not", "you are violent and vengeful", these people are hypocrites, because they say they are working for our people and are offering "recognition to those men and women who iron our clothes, watch over us, wash our cars, and make our handicrafts".

They do not see that this is not the way, not the right path.

We as indigenous are not only those things. We are the ones who, through our ancestors, have kept society together to the present, we are the ones who have diverse ways of expressing ourselves as daily witnesses to the idea that it is possible to live in peace with others and with mother earth, we champion the responsible use of culture, which does away with preconceptions and ideas promoted by ignorance and lack of understanding by others. We are the ones as a people who have given up so much at such a high and unfortunate cost, such as our most valued legacy, the greatness of the past, our faith, our culture, our food. What kind of sin is it to have self-determination? What kind of sin is it to protest? What sin have we committed when we accept the new nationality of peoples living on our soil? What sin have indigenous committed when we recognise each other as human beings? Why do they mistreat us when we state that something does not look right to us?

In other words, people who practice what they criticise, who judge you in the name of democracy, who say they are offering tribute, are just like the colonisers, they keep exchanging gold for trinkets and want us to give away our wealth for shiny mirrors. Amparo Ochoa has a song that expresses this very well:

And we open our homes and call them friends
But if an Indian comes back tired from working in the highlands
We humiliate him and see him as a stranger throughout his land.

You hypocrite acting like a humble person in front of a foreigner
You become arrogant with your own poor brothers
Oh, Malinche's curse, illness of our age,
When will you leave my land….when will you free my people.


I dedicate this to all the indigenous peoples of the world, especially to my Maori brothers and sisters in Aotearoa New Zealand, my Wayuu people and to the Wichi people.

I want to share information about what is happening to our Maori brothers and sisters in Aotearoa. Please read this letter and send it on, for once make the voice heard of THOSE WHO HAVE NO VOICE.

David Hernández Palmar. Indígena Wayuu. Clan IIPUANA
0414 632 1312
0416 370 3539
+ 58 414 632 1312
+ 58 416 370 3539
shiaakua@gmail.com

"Tradition is like a wise elder, as she sits on the road of days, she tells future generations what she has lived." RAMON PAZ IIPUANA 1938

"La tradición es como una anciana que sentada en el camino de los días, cuenta a las generaciones venideras lo que ha vivido". RAMON PAZ IIPUANA 1938

La tradition, c'est comme une vieille dame qui, assise sur le chemin des jours qui passent, raconte aux générations à venir ce qui lui a été donné de
vivre. RAMON PAZ IIPUANA, 1938
___________

Friday, November 09, 2007

The Open Anthropology Project (OAP)

Editor's note:

For those one or two individuals who may have been minimally curious as to how I could let more than a week pass without posting to this blog, I have to announce the following.

I have started a neighbouring blog which has consumed my energies. This is the OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY blog at:
http://openanthropology.wordpress.com/

The blog was partly motivated by two separate yet coincidental events: my teaching a graduate course in anthropology, focusing on the decolonization of anthropological knowledge, theory, and practice, and the now considerable volume of media and blog articles on the participation of anthropologists in counterinsurgency campaigns. My notion of an Open Anthropology is one that is free of the constraints of "discipline," "profession," and institutionalization, one that is open source and open access, collaborative and participatory, and directly engaged in the politics of liberation (by first beginning to understand that anthropology is an insider's knowledge system...the insider in this case being the colonizer).

So what does "Open Anthropology" look like in actual practice? Well, you could say that I am doing it in this very moment of writing, and the reader is doing it in the very same instance of reading this.
__________

Friday, October 19, 2007

Guatemala: a good place to kill

Ivan Briscoe

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Each day brings an average of fifteen fresh corpses, scooped up from roadways and ditches after the work of death-squads and criminals has been done. And each day, or so it seems, the police force loses some more men, as the latest counter-narcotic cleansing shears through its dwindling ranks, and a fresh batch of guns goes underground.

Life without law and order makes for a restless public. The decisive round of voting approaches in the country’s
presidential elections on 4 November 2007, and many of the 13 million Guatemalans are darkly unexcited, sullenly vengeful. "What people want is protection", says Estuardo Zapeta, host of the popular radio talk-show Contravía in the capital, Guatemala City. "They no longer want the authorities to bother - they don’t believe in the police. What you hear now is a cry of despair. Out of 100 callers, ninety agree with social cleansing."

Zapeta is indigenous, an anthropologist and a devout Protestant. In almost any other part of modern-day Latin America, he would have become a progressive political leader. But Guatemala is different. Guatemala has death-squads, polo matches, mega-churches and four television channels, all belonging to one foreigner. Only Russia has a higher murder-rate for women, only China exports more children for adoption to the United States. And Zapeta’s favourite subject is that of his listeners: how to survive in a state of nature. Retired army general
Otto Pérez Molina stalks the campaign trail in luminous orange t-shirts, his smile frozen, roundly denying any involvement in the country’s genocides of the 1980s while proffering a mano dura (firm hand) against crime. His rival Álvaro Colom, the leader in the first round of voting, promises a rational, moderate government, yet no one can deny that his National Unity of Hope party is penetrated, as all major parties are, by torrents of drug money. For the moment, Pérez Molina narrowly leads in the polls.

On 9 September, in the first round of the poll,
these two came out top of a scattered field of fourteen candidates riding diverse parties, cobbled together by friends and financiers, in which representatives of the left - including Nobel peace prize-winner Rigoberta Menchú - scraped together under 6%. Without a doubt, this was the most miserable showing for radical change in the whole of Latin America.

The public mood is fear, but this
result is still a great mystery. A democracy with 51% poverty, wracked by the worst inequality in the continent, afflicted by crime and judicial decay, feels compelled to cure its wounds by scratching them harder and harder. Meanwhile, the killings and crimes are still faced with a monumental indifference from state institutions, or incompetence, or, worst of all, are the work of dark forces that watch jealously over Guatemala from some cold-war bunker.

"It’s widely known who the drug traffickers are. The names of politicians, judges, deputies and officials are known. The US embassy has a register of these people. So why aren’t they captured?" asks Edelberto Torres Rivas, the Guatemalan doyen of Latin American sociologists and author of dozens of books. "I have no reply."

Back to the colony
Guatemala, like much of central America in the era of globalisation, is in the thrall of political irrationality. For an outsider, its cultural riches and starved collective wisdom seem an impossible combination - as if a millenarian civilization were constantly imploding, which was indeed the condition of the ancient Mayan empire according to environmental historian Jared Diamond. Yet the place where explanations usually begin is the colony, formed by one of Spain’s most bloodthirsty conquistadors, Pedro de Alvarado, and perpetuated by a tiny elite that robbed land and lived off its Indian serfs with great self-satisfaction.

During the wanderings of his exile, the deposed Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz was often accused by the left, and Che Guevara in particular, of cowardice in face of the United Fruit Company coup that overthrew him in 1954. Arbenz’s defence was that he could not mount any decent riposte to Washington’s intervention when it was his own military and economic elite that willingly took the US bait, uprooting the country’s sole attempt to create an equitable capitalist society.

Imperial power, first Spanish and then north American, has consistently operated on Guatemala, that potential "communist beachhead in our hemisphere" whose spectre President Eisenhower raised. But the extent of its influence has hinged on the cooperation of a domestic elite whose application of colonial rule - from vagrancy laws to genocide - has made it an ideal agent of foreign strategy, powerful enough to repress but too illegitimate to live without help from abroad. This nexus has undoubtedly been the most stable feature of Guatemalan political history. "The greatest fundamental problems of contemporary Guatemala.... are colonial realities," wrote historian Severo Martínez Peláez in 1970.

This was clearly visible by the time the Guatemalan state, the army and the last guerrilla ranks signed the 1996 peace accords. Amongst its many provisions, the treaty had one ambition at its heart: draining the state of its military ethos, and giving it sufficient funds to provide basic social welfare. In a country where the progressive wing of the armed forces in the early 1980s planned only to kill 30% of inhabitants of rebel areas rather than all of them (President
Carlos Arana infamously declared in 1971 that "if it is necessary to turn the country into a cemetery in order to pacify it, I will not hesitate to do so"), this marked an extraordinary change.

The decade since then has dispelled hopes of an orderly transition. Every step back from official power by traditional elites has been mirrored by a new presence in the shadows, reinforcing all the old vices: taxes are frozen at just over 10% of GDP, the military keeps its intelligence under wraps, and death- squads once again tour the Indian villages alongside Lake Atitlán, as if trapped in a Reaganite time-warp. The public, meanwhile, has proved strangely supportive of this inertia, failing to turn out for a referendum in 1999 on constitutional reform, and then voting repeatedly for the right. All that remains are the words of the accords, and the hollow promises of rulers.

"Everyone lives in their own world", argues Pedro Trujillo, professor of politics at
Francisco Marroquín University, intellectual bastion of the economic elite. "The government favours and protects business, and they’re happy. The leftwing groups live off international aid, generating projects which say this country is a disaster. No one wants to make space for anyone else."

In a time of sharply decreasing US interest, the blockage of reform points to a process more dynamic and obscure than brute colonial practice. If we want to understand the mystery of how nothing of significance has happened in a democracy of the oppressed, ripe for its own
Evo Morales, then three key issues unavoidably come to the fore: the panic over insecurity; the entrenchment of the elite; and the singular failure of the mass indigenous movement.

The enigmas of the crime wave
On many evenings, Guatemala’s main news broadcast, Noti7, opens with the snarling faces of tattooed gang members seized by the police with some small bags of drugs. A few instants later, an advertising break reveals a very similarly dressed hip-hop homeboy drinking a desirable beverage, and adored for it by surrounding women.

There is little more schizophrenic that gangland in central America. Borrowed straight from US culture, or rather deported from the suburbs of Los Angeles in the 1990s, the
mara gangs are now said by Washington to represent one of the gravest threats to peace in the region. "Homies", as they call themselves, have a different set of concerns. Many would like to retire from the crime game, but the problem is that they can’t: "Five years ago we started a programme that tried to get the gang members into jobs", explains one official in a major international development agency. "But the narco-traffickers came to tell them that they had to sell drugs. The police insisted on a certain amount of robberies, so they could take their share. In one month, nineteen young kids were killed, and that was that."

While the murder tally has soared to around 6,000 a year, no rigorous effort has been made to categorise the
deaths, be they criminal, narcotic, political, or the work of a parallel state structure. Common crime and gang violence are assumed to represent the lion’s share, but those who know the poor barrios of Guatemala City are not convinced: "there have been very few killings recently between gang members", observes the aid worker. "Most are now extra-judicial assassinations, and this year has been very violent."

The question of why so many people are being killed is rarely addressed in Guatemala. For a start, each homicide investigator has only seventy-two hours on average to wrap up a murder case; the result is that most are shuffled immediately into files, with only 2% ending in a court sentence. Politically sensitive cases, meanwhile, are subject to layers of pressure and manhandling. "I do the work, I hand the file over", explains one police investigator. "Then the bosses decide amongst themselves."

Yet the suspicion, voiced in numerous quarters and echoed in an outstanding United Nations report by legal professor
Philip Alston in February 2007, is that death-squads are prowling freely once again. Alston abstains from branding this official policy, even if Guatemala’s decrepit institutions certainly make it, in his words, a "good place to kill". But the direct participation of police officers points to at least tacit support from authorities: two bodyguards of the police chief were arrested in recent days for picking up five young men playing football in the capital and shooting then dead, all at midday on a Saturday. The obscure roles played by security advisers, retired military officers and off-duty police suggest the policy of "social cleansing" could even have been sanctioned by the highest levels of state.

Evidence here is thin on the ground, which is understandable. Figures such as Víctor Rivera, a former CIA operative in 1980s El Salvador, and now adviser to the interior ministry and proprietor of a twenty-four-hour drop-in centre for wealthy families of kidnapping victims, are shrouded in mystery, even when they deign to give newspaper interviews; he recently affirmed that "the families I advised knew that I wasn’t going to pay." The former police chief Erwin Sperisen, meanwhile, was an intimate colleague of Rivera, and has also been linked to death-squad activity. He
resigned in March 2007 in the wake of the gruesome murder of three El Salvadorian politicians, a narco-trafficking turf crime in which Rivera played a thoroughly obscure role, apprehending the culprits before they were taken to jail and liquidated. In his last official gesture, Sperisen declared on an evangelical television station that "we carried out illegal acts, but we did what was right."

The ties between retired military officers and Pérez Molina’s campaign team are likewise murky, and journalists prefer not to pry. Six former chiefs of military intelligence are nevertheless reported to be involved in the retired general’s campaign, and few doubt that they are themselves connected with the cliques of economic power and organised crime formed by veterans of the civil war. It should be noted that around 120 private-security firms operate in the country, almost all belonging to former army officers.

Grand conspiracy theories are not needed to observe a certain primitive logic here. Organised crime and corrupted police institutions appear to have substantial control over the country’s homicide rate and its levels of petty crime. An increase in the murder rate serves the economic interests of private security and racketeers, and is useful in dampening down crimes against the rich, particularly bank heists and kidnappings - the two types of crime that have fallen most sharply in the past four years. Lastly, and most speculatively, the murder rate fuels the political demand for tougher retribution, and an "iron fist."

For the general public, these causal connections are far removed from the visceral sensations of everyday insecurity. In rural areas, lynchings are commonplace solutions. But in urban centres, demands focus on the return of the one institution that has shown itself throughout Guatemalan history to be exceptionally brutal, but also effective and victorious - "the spinal column of the state, in comparison to the infantile and shameless political class", in the words of the country’s top political analyst and former guerrilla fighter, Gustavo Porras.

Since 2006, 3,000 soldiers have been deployed in joint street-patrols with the police. Pérez Molina’s plan is clear: "we need to use the army until we have a police force that is ready, and its use must not be limited to working alongside officers, it must have its own ability to act." His rival Colom’s plan, on the other hand, would see a merit-based professionalisation of the police force.

There are no prizes for guessing which plan strikes the popular chord. "People want a militarised police, a civil police with a military culture", declares Zapeta.

The eternal elite
Occasionally, the visitor to Guatemala can sight a member of a rare species. Sandwiched between bodyguards, darkened behind tinted glass, shuttered in villa ghettos, the economic elite is reclusive as never before. "They send their children to Houston for medical check-ups, they send them to university abroad, they have their bodyguards", explains
Juan Alberto Fuentes, a leading economist. "They don’t actually need the state."

It is curious, then, these reclusive oligarchs - experts estimate these may involve around 150 families, clustered into five major holding groups - exert a political and material dominance greater than central America has ever seen before. Every vice-presidential candidate on the tickets of the five main parties in September’s poll was a member of these wealthy clans. Unprecedented amounts of money are sprayed at far too many candidates, while the television tycoon from Mexico, Ángel González, favours the business-friendly with flattering news spots. Naturally, none of the leading hopefuls - not even Menchú - proposed any rise in taxes, or any increase in government spending beyond that made possible by cuts in telephone calls and other minor wastage.

"Saying you’ll raise taxes is political suicide", observes Manfredo Marroquín from the election monitoring group
Acción Ciudadana.

An essential reason for the mire of Guatemala is the elite’s fanatical conservatism. In many ways, this sits oddly with the radical transformation of business life since the region’s civil wars ended: interests have shifted from coffee and cotton to banks, assembly plants, transnational expansion and, inevitably, money-laundering. Intra-regional trade quintupled from 1990 to 2004.
Pollo Campero, Guatemala’s flagship fast-food giant, has lit the beacon for others to follow. Inside its innumerable drive-in foodcourts, nervy waiters with hi-tech headpieces instantaneously transmit the customer’s chicken predilections; one of the bosses, Dionisio Gutiérrez, has his own television show on Sunday night, in which he propagates the purest form of neo-liberalism.

The anomalies here are again extraordinary. At Guatemala’s stage of development - just over $2,000 per capita - it would surely make excellent economic sense to roll out better health and education, generating hardier workers, busier consumers and peaceful civil coexistence. But the logic simply does not hold. In a fundamental sense, the economic elite has lost interest in Guatemala, and scorns both the state and its military backbone. The opinion of one corporate executive, quoted by the researcher
Alexander Segovia in his work on new central American elites, is illuminating: "In my daily timetable, I can only dedicate thirty-five minutes to Guatemala."

Yet this exuberant pan-American expansionism is something of a smokescreen. Elites are richer and more diversified than ever before, yet their inflated status sits uneasily with the inequality, mass democracy and criminal peril that has dropped anchor at home. This homeland may certainly not matter to them or their children, but even so it remains a platform, full of pliable subalterns and dirt-cheap labour. It serves the rich materially, but its ever increasing distance has come to constitute a direct existential threat.

More than anything, it is this complex bind of financial strength and numerical fragility than accounts for an elite which steers political and media life, yet cannot bring itself to entertain any modest change to distribution or development. One disaffected member of the coffee-growing oligarchy summed it up: "This is a system that requires massive repression. The elite simply cannot see a way out of its own domination."

The manifest destiny?
Yet the numerical logic seems irrefutable. Guatemala’s twenty-two long-suffering indigenous peoples, who constitute around 50% of the population - the precise proportion is a matter of great historical controversy - should long ago have seized power. Indeed such is the force of the numbers that, according to the Mayan intellectual and activist Álvaro Pop, many indigenous people content themselves with their "manifest destiny" of eventual power, even as they continue live under the thumb of white, Spanish-speaking sons of Alvarado.

It was Bolivia’s
Evo Morales who proved instrumental in Menchú’s candidacy, reportedly commanding her to stand during his visit to the country in late 2006. Yet the eternal obstacles to indigenous empowerment had not receded. The recurrent indigenous political shipwreck, seen first under Arbenz, and repeated in the guerrilla disaster of the 1980s and the fragmentation of the late 1990s, played itself out all over again, with a paltry 3.09% for the Nobel laureate.

A strong indigenous political party would seem the ideal solution to many of Guatemala’s chronic problems, sweeping away the absurd fragmentation of the party system - the average lifetime of a party is 7.6 years - connecting people back to state power, and forcing the elite into acknowledgment of the need to reform. Intellectuals
scratch their heads in wonderment at this absence of what should necessarily have occurred, and diverse reasons are provided: inter-ethnic rivalries, a fixation with community life, and an unbridgeable gap between Mayan intellectuals and the popular base.

Most pertinently, the ideological dispersion of the Mayans has blocked
mobilisation. In the indigenous highlands of the Quiché, the indelibly corrupt party of former dictator Efraín Ríos Montt still holds a strange attraction, based in large part on the networks of local militia patrols recruited to join the military’s murder spree of 1982-83. Ríos Montt killed many, but not everybody; for those he did not kill, there was food and security and presidential sermons on a Sunday night. It is the Stockholm syndrome on a massive scale.

Guatemala’s rulers, having doctored the political threat, have seen fit to induct the Indians into power. The largesse of the outgoing president,
Oscar Berger, ensured the incorporation of 300 indigenous officials into government posts. Over 38% of the country’s mayors are now indigenous, although one leading government official dismissively told me that "these mayors are so bad no voter trusts in them." For now, this is where the racial settlement stands: tiny shares of power in a state that doesn’t work.

"There are two fears in this country", argues Pop. "One is that of the whites, and their ancestral fear of us. The other is that of the indigenous community, which has internalised its marginal status and assumes that certain things cannot be done."

A last stand
A Guatemala paralysed into inertia runs the distinct risk of watching the state fold up and collapse, whoever wins the 4 November
poll. Far from lifting the country’s fortunes, global integration has only bolstered Guatemala’s economy of short-term, lesser evils, of practical reason in a social and institutional vacuum. Already the profits from drug-running - some 75% of cocaine consumed in the United States is estimated to pass through Guatemala - have turned huge chunks of territory into lawless zones. In turn, the trade aggravates the crime wave, reinforces the elite’s isolation, and corrupts new indigenous leaders; in simple words, it is poison for a sick country.

For the moment, the United States and Europe are giving their commitment to a new United Nations investigative body, the
International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (Cicig). The task is to find and prosecute the dark powers that people all the state’s institutions. It is, quite possibly, a last-gasp effort, and few would dare speculate as to how it might fare against a revitalised military seizing control of the nation’s police force.

But let there be no doubt: as the world forgets central America, a tragedy is forming, born out of cold-war beachheads and powdering northern noses.

(CC) Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives (by-nc-nd)

URL TRACKBACK :
http://www.agoravox.com/tb_receive.php3?id_article=7017

Monday, October 08, 2007

Anthropology's Dirty Little Colonial Streak?

In good times it might appear to be a minor streak; at other times it is a big, broad swath. The coloniality of anthropology might be something hidden and obscured by the passage of time, perhaps seemingly esoteric; at other times, such as the present, anthropology's role as an instrument of empire can come back into sharper focus as an inherent problem of a Western way of knowing the world (at other times, anthropology might simply be an amusement of empire). This is of course not meant to paint most, let alone all anthropologists as sinister figures. Yet, we have to admit that imperialism is a significant feature of a "discipline" that was made possible by colonial expansion and where once again anthropologists can find profit from imperialist missions in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. When this is added to the chorus of voices in anthropology that would like to diminish indigeneity, that disputes the very concept "indigenous," that refers to the struggles of the colonized for rights in terms of "seeking special rights," and that lords over indigenous physical remains as if other people's bodies (specifically colonized bodies) were the natural property of anthropology--then it is no wonder that this "discipline" (the martial severity of this terminology is indicative and fortuituous in this case) continues to be banished from most universities in the "decolonized" world.

It is also no wonder that numerous programs have been spawned in universities that some anthropologists indignantly criticize as attempts to expropriate their discipline's cherished subject matter, programs such as Cultural Studies, Ethnic Studies, and numerous Native Studies, American Indian Studies, Indigenous Studies, and First Nations Studies programs. Why should native communities receive anthropologists who wish to "study" them when anthropology is still fighting with its own colonial heritage, and when some anthropologists seem to have enlisted in the John Howard School of Anthropology? (I am using the figure of right wing Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, whose aim is to force Aboriginals into the white Australian "mainstream" where nobody is to be deemed different or "special," no matter how much shorter their lifespans, or how much greater their poverty, or how different their languages and social relations may be, and in spite of the fact that ideas such as "Australia" can be read as synonymous with invasion.)

What prompted this seemingly sudden outburst of critical self-reflection is the growing number of media reports of anthropologists participating in counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. See for example: "Army Enlists Anthropology in War Zones," by David Rohde, in The New York Times, Oct. 5, 2007. Some anthropologists are volunteering to take part in what the American military calls "Human Terrain Teams," and once again the terminology tells us something: a conceptualization of a "field" as an object of surveillance and occupation. (See a New York Times video on Human Terrain Teams--Cultural Anthropologists in Afghanistan). Beyond this particular issue, it is surprising that anthropologists, myself included, can so easily resort to talking about "fieldwork" with little in the way of conscious examination of the "scientistic" and colonialist connotations of the idea. Indeed, an Australian anthropologist who helped to devise the new military strategy, David Kilcullen, approvingly calls counterinsurgency "armed social science" (see his articles on anthropology and counterinsurgency in the Small Wars Journal). Montgomery McFate, an anthropologist who has advocated "embedding anthropology" in military missions seems to dismiss critics who say this is militarizing anthropology: "we’re really anthropologizing the military." Wonderful. And what is the military doing "over there" again? Marcus Griffin, who muses on "Of What Use is Anthropology?" defends the participation of anthropologists in these Human Terrain Teams.

It turns out that this latest New York Times article is just the tip of a growing body of information--see for example:

In this climate, and with this historical baggage, anthropologists will have to work even harder (after decades of "decolonizing anthropology") to challenge the perpetuation of a fairly accurate image of a discipline that is probably the "whitest" (broadly conceived) of all the social sciences in terms of the composition of both its students and faculty. After years of my own complaints at how "unfairly" anthropology was portrayed in some quarters as an Ugly White Colonial discipline, I am tempted to silently acquiesce.
_______

Arrested for Protesting Against Columbus

From REUTERS

Columbus Day protest in Denver leads to arrests

Saturday, Oct. 6, 2007

DENVER (Reuters) - About 75 protesters, including American Indian activist Russell Means, were arrested on Saturday after blocking Denver's downtown parade honoring the Italian-born discoverer Christopher Columbus, an event they denounced as "a celebration of genocide."

Police loaded protesters onto buses after they refused orders to disperse. Most will be charged with obstruction of a roadway or disrupting a lawful assembly, Denver Police Lt. Ron Saunier said.

Police delayed the parade's start for more than an hour as they tried to head off confrontations.

American Indian groups and their supporters have disrupted the city's annual Columbus Day parade every year for nearly two decades, leading to clashes with Colorado's Italian-American community over the century-old celebration, the longest-running such commemoration in the United States.

Columbus Day, marked this year on October 8, is an official holiday for most U.S. federal government workers, many public schools, state and local agencies and the U.S. bond market. It recalls the October 12, 1492, landing of Columbus in the Americas on his search for a naval route to India, an event that spawned an era of European interest in the New World.

Means, talking to Reuters before his arrest, said Columbus was the "first trans-Atlantic slave trader" after landing in the Americas in 1492. He said Columbus started centuries of oppression of native peoples.

READ MORE...

Friday, September 28, 2007

Against Recolonization: Australian Anthropologists Speak Out

As reported previously in The CAC Review, the government of Australia has taken a severe turn against indigenous rights in Australia, and internationally, having joined other settler states in voting against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The beleaguered discipline of anthropology in Australia, represented by the Australian Anthropological Society (AAS) has, after much debate, produced the following statement directed to the government of Australia:

Statement on recent policy trends in Indigenous affairs

The Australian Anthropology Society registers deep concerns at the policy direction the Australian nation is taking towards its Indigenous citizens. As a group of scholars, many with long-standing and ongoing professional experience of remote as well as rural and urban Aboriginal communities, we offer the following comments:

Australia has refused to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a document that was many years in the making. The Declaration does not provide an alternative set of laws to those of Australia or of any other nation. What it does do is oblige nation states to support the capacity of Indigenous populations to act. It aims to enhance the capacity of those populations, and individuals within them, to determine their modes of life within the laws and institutions of the states of which they are citizens. We and our Indigenous colleagues and friends cannot help but wonder at Australia’s ungenerous response to the non-binding but uplifting principles contained in the UN Declaration.

Minority populations with different social and cultural histories are a feature of many modern nation-states, and the ability to treat such people honourably is a measure of the maturity and humanity of a nation. Despite the body of work produced by anthropologists, the varied Indigenous societies that have interacted with the radically different European settlers at various stages since 1788 are little understood in their own country. Even the simplest features of the classical Aboriginal traditions — the totemic and moiety divisions, the mutual dependence and reciprocity built into ceremonial and economic arrangements, the multilingualism evident among the wealth of languages — are less well known to educated Australians than is the Indian caste system or the Spanish bullfight. Without knowledge of the normal economic, political and family structures that comprised the everyday life of Indigenous people, there can be little appreciation of the radical destabilisation and restructuring that these societies have had to manage.

Aboriginal people have been adjusting to their changing social conditions, in some cases for over 200 years but in others within living memory. While a long-term assimilative process may be inevitable and can be constructive and even liberating, a large body of research demonstrates that forcing established social processes into a foreign mould is destructive of individuals, families and cultures. There is no doubt that the insistent pressures and stresses resulting from radical social change, without a respectful and reciprocal relationship with the nation’s authorities, have been responsible for severely destabilising family authority and informal community standards of care and protection for the young and the vulnerable. This breakdown in turn has made it difficult to maintain social control. It is the loss of a coherent community structure that has seen the emergence of some extreme examples of social pathology, which, it must be stressed, are neither typical nor representative of the majority of Indigenous people.

The despair, desperation and destructive violence that mars the social life of a substantial number of Indigenous communities does demand government action. Indeed action is long overdue, but dealing with social dysfunction in a clumsy and ill informed manner is likely to compound the level of disorder and add to estrangement. Anthropologists working in Australia are personally and painfully aware of real and urgent humanitarian needs. Only the most scandalous and shameful of these feature in the media; the chronic conditions that generate them are not so obvious. Effective policy responses require an intelligent understanding and respect for the conditions and the people involved. The language of aggressive assimilationism is not effective in dealing with culturally distinct and historically alienated people. Although initially time consuming, processes of negotiation with respected individuals and relevant organizations are far more effective and thus, in the longer term, more economical. Measures for which Aboriginal people have been pleading for years — more police and law enforcement, better housing, and effective implementation of alcohol prohibitions — should not appear as corrective measures imposed in a military-style operation.

We believe strongly that the governing of vulnerable, marginal and excluded peoples carries an added responsibility as these are people whose voices are often muted in the public arena. Rather than welfare recipients being made the target of punitive measures, there needs to be long term commitment to a stable and holistic program of providing adequate resources for these communities to come to terms with their current conditions of integration with the state’s institutions and processes. A wealthy nation such as Australia surely has the knowledge, the expertise and the resources to provide excellence in education, housing and health for the relatively few residents of remote communities, as well as for other Indigenous Australians. It is crucial that these people are listened to, and thus enabled to take responsibility for the direction of their development into the future.

[Thanks to Dr. Gillian Cowlishaw for circulating this statement]

Professor Gillian Cowlishaw,
President, AAS.
University of Technology, Sydney
Humanities & Social Sciences,
PO Box 123
Broadway, NSW, 2007
Ph. 61 2 9514 2743

Other posts of relevance:

The Binding Symbolic Value of the UN Declaration

Recolonizing Australia...or why Trojan horses never say "sorry"

Canada, the UN, and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Aboriginals in Australia: Still the Worst Off

News from Australia
----

Saturday, July 21, 2007

The Imperialist Drive

While it would appear that formal colonialism largely ended in the last century, the imperial impulse entered the new millennium in altered forms, writes Ayman El-Amir in Al-Ahram Weekly Online at:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/854/op6.htm

Extract:
"One is often tempted to believe, even through a sheer lapse of memory, that colonialism and the long trail of generations that fought it is something of the past, now dead and buried in history books. Yet nearly three- quarters of all member states of the United Nations today have become independent sovereign countries in the past half century through struggles of self- determination. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has, during his recent visit to Algeria, declined to apologise for the atrocities France committed during its 130-year-long occupation and exploitation of Algeria. It is a strong reminder that colonial attitudes remain a bitter reality and that despite the promise of globalisation, colonialism in its varied forms still poisons the lives of many around the world....Colonialism in all its abominable forms, whether direct military conquest or settler colonialism, has crept into the 21st century."

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Recolonizing Australia...or why Trojan horses never say "sorry"

Recolonizing Australia? It does not seem likely given that for Aboriginals in Australia, colonialism never ended. However, some extra inches were hard won in terms of limited land rights for select communities, limited degrees of self-determination, and landmark court victories. Perhaps this is why the right wing government of Prime Minister John Howard has joined what appears to be a growing international anti-indigenous movement in clawing back indigenous rights. This is the government that has steadfastly refused to ever say "sorry" for the genocidal acts inflicted upon Aboriginals, such as having generations of their children forcibly removed and schooled in Euro-Australian institutions. Speaking for myself, as a non-Aboriginal, I would have thought that "sorry," after decades of genocide, would be belittling and humiliating, a slap in the face given the minor and trivial nature of a mere apology. So imagine the characters of these persons who think "sorry" is too much to offer.

As if living out his fantasy for a "final solution" for Aboriginal Australia, PM Howard has used the excuse of a report of abuse of children in the Northern Territory to do what? To send in troops, police, ill prepared bureaucrats, and unmarried doctors to check on the integrity of the genitalia of Aboriginal children. More than that, the Howard government has taken control of 73 Aboriginal townships, compelling them to submit to leasing their territories for five years. The central government needs to take over land to stop child abuse? More than that even, non-Aboriginals no longer require permits to enter Aboriginal territories--what this means is that, ironically, sex tourists who fancy Aboriginal children can now have a go. Alcohol and pornography are to be banned, and yet most Aboriginals who drink do their drinking in white-owned establishments in towns, not in their territories. Troops to prevent Aboriginals from sexually abusing their children? And yet the report that offered this entry point for Howard indicated that non-Aboriginals had also sexually abused Aboriginal children. The same "Little Children Are Sacred" report listed 97 prescriptions for tackling child abuse, and not one of them involved troops, land takeovers, or scrapping the permit system.

Howard's concern for child welfare is more than just questionable. After all, this is the same Prime Minister who locked up Afghan children fleeing the Taliban along with their parents in desolate, blazingly hot prison camps in the outback, in places such as Woomera in South Australia. Afghans fleeing the Taliban pre-2001 were labelled "economic opportunists," but suddenly, after September 11, 2001, the same John Howard was the first to offer troops to support a US invasion of Afghanistan, and the Taliban suddenly really were "evil." In Australia, an Aboriginal child received a prison sentence for stealing magic markers, called "texters" in Australia, under a "three strikes" policy since he had stolen minor items before. As we all know, prisons are ideal places for rehabilitating disadvantaged children. Now they can all live in prison once more.

No other people in Australia--and child abuse is not a monopoly of Aboriginals, needless to say--suffers troops in their homes to deal with their domestic crises. Aboriginals are being singled out for special treatment indeed, as children, as cripples, and as wards.

This latest Trojan horse does not come to say "sorry," it comes to say "I am here to look after the welfare of your little ones."

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Ottawa to Appeal Expansion of Indigenous "Status"

As expected, the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper plans to appeal a recent Canadian provincial high court ruling that struck down a long-standing restriction on legal recognition of indigenous identity.

For more on this see Bill Curry's
"Appeal of native ruling likely, Ottawa says," The Globe and Mail, Tuesday, June 19, 2007.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Canada: New Developments in Indigenous Status

The past week in Canada has seen the promise of some major new transformations in the current position of Aboriginal peoples. For those readers not too familiar with the Canadian situation, it is important to note that there are two basic "classes" of Aboriginals: (1) those officially registered as "status Indians" who have legal rights to residence on reserves, with individual reserves referred to as "First Nations"--the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) is tied to this backdrop; and, (2) people who self-identify as Aboriginal, but who are "non-status" because they had a mother or grandmother who married a non-native--the Congress of Aboriginal People, which rarely receives anywhere as much media attention as the AFN, is tied to this population.

In Canada, the law had descent reckoned through the paternal line, even when this went against particular aboriginal societies' custom of reckoning descent through the maternal line. As a result, a vast number of Aboriginals lost the right to reside on reserves, and most ended up in cities. In the meantime, Aboriginal men were entitled to marry non-native women, and those women obtained the right to reside on reserve, so that some persons with "status" may not even be Aboriginal. This double-pronged erosion of reserve-based nations may be coming to a final end. (The Indian Missions of Trinidad were regulated by an even more severe version of this system--where all "mixed race" offspring were officially de-Indianized and lost rights to collective lands that had been granted to their parents and grandparents. Both Trinidad and Canada were governed by the British for a period of time.)

On Saturday, June 16, 2007, Bill Curry writing in The Globe and Mail (
"Indian status can be traced through mother, court rules"), tells us the following:

The B.C. [British Columbia] Supreme Court has wiped out one of the most contentious aspects of the federal Indian Act, striking down part of Ottawa's definition of a status Indian and opening the door to hundreds of thousands of new applications for native services.

The court rejected part of the existing legal definition on the grounds that it discriminates against Canadians who trace their aboriginal roots through their female relatives rather than their father or grandfather.

The ruling alters the federal law that has long created two classes of aboriginals in Canada: the 767,000 who fit the definition of status Indian and the several hundred thousand more who don't.

The 2001 census found 976,000 Canadians who self-identified as aboriginal and more than 1.3 million who said they had aboriginal ancestry.

Many aboriginals who failed in their requests for status will now have a much better chance of success, said Beverley Jacobs, the president of the Native Women's Association of Canada.

"This opens the floodgates," she said. "I don't think we could have asked for a better judgment."

Aboriginals with status qualify for prescription drug coverage and can apply for postsecondary assistance.

The Federal Government of Canada disingenuously claimed that it previously addressed the issue of patriarchal discrimination in the Indian Act by passing Bill C-31 in 1985. What was the "major change" of that Bill? It simply pushed the cut-off line to second generation offspring of unions between natives and others, and still reckoned descent along paternal lines. That minor change did however return status to 175,000 individuals. This latest court ruling has the effect of nullifying Section 6 of the Indian Act, that section which pertains to who can claim to be an "Indian" (the subject of an upcoming seminar in Montreal).

In the same week, the Federal Government committed itself to setting up, in conjunction with the Assembly of First Nations, an impartial tribunal for resolving the more than 800 land claim cases that remain unresolved in Canada, that on average have been the subject to legal disputes lasting 20 years, with some much longer than that (see The Globe and Mail, June 13, 2007,
"New land-claims process in works"). This would mean that the Federal Government could no longer act as defendant, judge, and jury all at the same time. While there is no way of predicting future rulings on so many cases, if one were to assume that there will be much more land added to the current land base of First Nations reserves, but also many more persons with status as outlined above, the net effect might be bigger numbers on all fronts, but not necessarily more land per person. If, on the other hand, the current size of the reserve land base were to remain roughly the same, but the numbers of persons with status vastly increased, it could serve to effectively crush reserves under their own weight. The situation where a boon becomes bane is not all that uncommon in Canada, as in the case of select reserves suffering from high rates of alcoholism and substance abuse suddenly finding themselves awash in cash from settled claims or other compensation packages, precisely at the time that those particular Aboriginals can least handle the new resources, and where the temptation to squander is higher than it might otherwise be.

Thursday, May 31, 2007

News from Australia

The last few weeks have seen a spate of articles in the Australian print media revolving around the 40th anniversary of Australia's decision to formally grant citizenship to its Aboriginal population, who had previously been controlled by various state legislative acts that classed them with the country's flora and fauna.

On the latter issue, see the Sydney Morning Herald, in an article titled, "When I was fauna: citizen's rallying call":

"LINDA BURNEY remembers her childhood well - those days when she was counted among the nation's wildlife. 'This is not ancient history,' says the state's [New South Wales] first Aboriginal minister. 'I was a child. It still staggers me that for the first 10 years of my life, I existed under the Flora and Fauna Act of NSW.' Then came the 1967 referendum, when Australians voted to extend full citizenship to Aborigines. Now, just days before the 40th anniversary of that vote, Ms Burney has described the referendum as a high tide in both the nation's history and her own - the moment when her status was elevated from fauna to citizen."

See especially: "Aborigines recall when Australia called them wildlife", by Michael Perry, Reuters, Thursday, May 24, 2007.

Other articles focused on the continued misery that dominates many remote and poor Aboriginal communities for whom "citizenship" entails a vague and increasingly irrelevant abstraction. A number of sources point out that in terms of health standards and life expectancy there are two Australias: one, a wealthier and whiter Australia with life expectancy mirroring that of nations of the G8, the second, an Aboriginal Australia with life expectancy rates mirroring those of the poorest nations of the "Third World." See the following article in The Australian: "Aborigines still off the map 40 years on," by Neil Sands, May 25, 2007.

Current Prime Minister John Howard, who has been in office for more than a decade is, according to some polls, leading his ruling coalition to what appears to be a landslide defeat by November of this year. Prime Minister Howard's administration has distinguished itself on numerous fronts, from alluding to Lebanese Australians as a violent community, to treating refugees fleeing the Taliban in pre-911 days as being mere "economic opportunists" (Australia later joined the US in invading Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban), to refusing to issue an apology for clear cases of genocide against Aboriginals in recent Australian history, and finally dismantling the Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders Commission. Howard is getting his fair share of heckling by Aboriginals at major events--see in the Agence France Presse, Sunday, May 27, 2007, "Australian PM heckled on Aborigines."

As if to further pollute the situation of unsettled Aboriginal land tenure in Australia, despite some historic victories in the highest courts of the country, we also read about plans to turn some Aboriginal territory into a nuclear waste dump...and then to return it to Aboriginals two centuries from now. This resembles the case of Great Britain using parts of South Australia for testing nuclear bombs, with that land also later returned to its traditional ownwers. One can read more in The Australian, "Aboriginal land likely to be nuke waste dump," by Tara Ravens, May 25, 2007.

"Why is it so hard to say sorry?"--a good question, addressed in this article by Ursula Stephens on the Australian Eurekastreet website. Please read some of the commentary that follows the article, at the bottom of the page.

Australia is still grappling with racism and its deep colonial history, an ongoing history, in this settler state that in many parts was settled by Europeans only within the last 170 years. With the amount of negative attention directed towards the U.S., the Iraq war, and the many shortcomings of President Bush, it is very easy to overlook other situations where both the nature and consequences of current political leadership can be even more stark and grim. Canada, like Australia, also evades such critical attention.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Brazilian Indigenous Leaders Condemn Pope

Indian leaders in Brazil have reacted angrily to comments by Pope Benedict that they had been purified by the Roman Catholic church since Columbus landed in the Americas in 1492.

In a speech to bishops at the end of a visit to Brazil on Sunday, Benedict said indigenous people of the Americas had welcomed European priests after conquest. "It's arrogant and disrespectful to consider our cultural heritage secondary to theirs," said Jecinaldo Satere Mawe, chief co-ordinator of Coiab, an Amazon Indian group.

The pope had said the peoples of the Americas had a "silent longing" for Christianity and welcomed European priests' arrival. He said the church had not imposed itself on the indigenous peoples of the Americas.


Brazil's National Indian Foundation (Funa i),Brazilian historians and the Indians themselves challenged pope Benedict XVI's declarations on the Christianization of the Brazil's natives. The pope talked about the subject at the opening of the 5th General Conference of the Latin-American and Caribbean Episcopate (CELAM), in Brazil.


See also: "Pope angers indigenous Brazilians over Christianity and colonisation remark"

And in the Reuters report in The Washington Post: "Brazil's Indians Offended by Pope Comments"