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. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: -= THE FOURTH WORLD DOCUMENTATION PROJECT =- :: :: A service provided by :: :: The Center For World Indigenous Studies :: :: www.cwis.org :: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Originating at the Center for World Indigenous Studies, Olympia, Washington USA www.cwis.org © 1999 Center for World Indigenous Studies (All Rights Reserved. References up to 500 words must be referenced to the Center for World Indigenous Studies and/or the Author Copyright Policy Material appearing in the Fourth World Documentation Project Archive is accepted on the basis that the material is the original, unoccupied work of the author or authors. Authors agree to indemnify the Center for World Indigenous Studies, and DayKeeper Press for all damages, fines and costs associated with a finding of copyright infringement by the author or by the Center for World Indigenous Studies Fourth World Documentation Project Archive in disseminating the author(s) material. In almost all cases material appearing in the Fourth World Documentation Project Archive will attract copyright protection under the laws of the United States of America and the laws of countries which are member states of the Berne Convention, Universal Copyright Convention or have bi-lateral copyright agreements with the United States of America. Ownership of such copyright will vest by operation of law in the authors and/or The Center for World Indigenous Studies, Fourth World Journal or DayKeeper Press. The Fourth World Documentation Project Archive and its authors grant a license to those accessing the Fourth World Documentation Project Archive to render copyright materials on their computer screens and to print out a single copy for their personal non-commercial use subject to proper attribution of the Center for World Indigenous Studies Fourth World Documentation Project Archive and/or the authors. Questions may be referred to: Director of Research Center for World Indigenous Studies PMB 214 1001 Cooper Point RD SW Suite 140 Olympia, Washington 98502-1107 USA 360-754-1990 www.cwis.org usaoffice@cwis.org OCR Software provided by Caere Corporation