Wednesday, May 21, 2014
We love what you've done with the place!
After spending the week in
New York City attending the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
and listening to dozens of speakers offering their interventions to the nearly
2,000 delegates and representatives, I have heard asked repeatedly a few
burning questions.
The first is: “What do want
from the UN or the international community?” Well, that's a loaded question
because there is what we want and what
we expect. Plain and simple, many
want action. For me, I come back to the warning about being careful what you
wish for. I just want some attention paid to our issues and to shame those
nations that continue to commit acts of genocide against us — plain and simple.
My expectations are low for
anything to have much in the way of fast results. Death may be quick but
survival is slow, particularly if we are talking about the survival of an
entire people and simply not a generation of them. I give less credit and
authority to those who are touted as leaders. I see this stage as an
opportunity to produce credible testimony to impact the court of public opinion
more than heads of state.
The speakers were from across
the globe but the messages were repeated over and over again — loss of land,
assimilation, abuse of women, health, poverty and environment. Land claims and
environmental protections are the issues that concern the colonial powers most
because these directly affect their bottom line as it relates to their
economies. So the second question that is quick to be asked by the mainstream
media is: “What do you want to see come from land claims settlements? This
question is quickly followed up by: “Surely you don't want all the land back
after all this time? Do you?”
Some of the Indigenous
people are quick to respond, "Oh, no. We wouldn't do that to you!"
But they never quite get around to answering just what they would like to see
as a resolution to long-standing battles over land. In 1922, the Chairman of
the New York State Indian Commission, Edward Everett, wrote in his report to
the State Legislature of the unlikelihood that Native people would have ever
shared lands had we known what the white man would do with it.
Ninety-two years later, as
we observe economic collapse, aged or decrepit infrastructure and man-induced
climate change, all I can say is that we love what you have done with the
place. And this goes to the heart of another question: “What would we do with title to lost lands?” My answer
begins with another question; this one to the people living and/or working on
our lands. “How are you doing under state and federal oversight? Over taxed?
Roads and schools in the crapper? Unemployment? Environment? How is that
working for you?"
Considering the bleak
outlook for even the immediate future, I would not shy away from the assertion
of Native stewardship and sovereignty on much of this conflicted land. But the
fact of the matter is that many of our people never quite get past the racial
bias at the core of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. And even with
repudiation and clear condemnation from the international community, this
remains at the foundation of U.S. and Canadian "Indian law" and is
still being used by courts today. With no clear path for reclamation, most of
our people never look that far down the road and certainly never develop comprehensive
land use plans. Perhaps a higher level of discontent with the state and feds
will pave the way for the "clean slate" approach to land use and just
one or two examples of business success stories and higher quality of life,
would certainly change the conversation. But these can't happen if we don't
really have a vision for our future.
If one thing is learned from
hearing so much testimony on Indigenous issues, it is that capitalism and
imperialism got it wrong and buying into their failed systems for modeling our
own is just absurd. We need to assert our presence, fight for our regulatory
advantages and market these as building blocks to regional development.
I am extremely disappointed
to say that no one brought up trade and commerce as a specific area of concern
for this world stage. Not one Native voice took the opportunity to cite the
articles of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that
specifically support our inherent rights to trade, commerce and our own
economic development. The absence of that conversation only adds to the
question as to what we are there for. If not there, where? If not then, when?
Minister of Human Rights
Purifacione Quisinbine told me more than 20 years ago at the UN that we needed
trade relations. That, she said, was the expression of sovereignty. She, like
me, viewed treaties as weak, one-sided documents. Contracts and invoices
represented equitability and it establishes relationships, not just between
governments but also between peoples.
Many good and important
issues got well warranted attention on this world stage but the real life
impacts to local and global economies caused by racist dogma cannot and should
not be down played. Two weeks, once a year with a few more annual events thrown
in is not enough to affect change. These issues have to be a drumbeat that
becomes deafening with international attention and takes full advantage of the
media attention that comes with it.
Our small corners of the
once vast lands which we tend to, need to be a reminders to all those who are
growing discontented with their lives — of what once was. We really don't like what
you've done with the place.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment