sophiaserpentia: (Default)
sophiaserpentia ([personal profile] sophiaserpentia) wrote2007-09-14 11:51 am

the un declaration on indigenous rights

Not that it's been mentioned in US news anywhere, but yesterday the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on the rights of indigenous people which has been in negotiation for 20 years.

Four nations voted against it: the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. What do these nations have in common? Huge tracts of land and vast amounts of natural resources which were stolen from indigenous people.

Critics in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia are vocal about their country's "no" vote. Here in the US? I think the media's still talking about how 'fat' Britney Spears looks now.

The State Department is concerned that this will impact US relations with Indian tribes. Most galling for the empire, i think, is Part V which requires the consent of all indigenous nations before laws can be passed which affect them.

Defenders of the vote in Australia and New Zealand have echoed the old racist refrain that it gives "one group special rights over another." It just sickens me every time i see challenges to one's privilege and efforts to bring about equality interpreted as "reverse -ism."

[identity profile] neitherday.livejournal.com 2007-09-14 10:30 pm (UTC)(link)
That sounds nice, but it's a good way to make sure nothing ever happens. For instance you would have a difficult time getting food vendors to agree to legislation requiring potentially costly and time consuming health inspections or small-time house painters agree to legislation banning cheaper lead paints. You'll find that whatever law is passed, they'll be some group that opposes it. If each self-defined group had veto power, nothing would ever change. I agree that all groups should be consulted about legislation that effects them, but not veto power.

Indigenous peoples present a special case, and are not analogous to street vendors or poly folk. There is a legitimate question about the right of rule of a culture that has taken land over a culture from whom the land was taken.

[identity profile] alobar.livejournal.com 2007-09-14 10:50 pm (UTC)(link)
You have some points. However, Christian monotheists have taken over and repress people of other paths. like non-monotheists, non-monogamists, etc.