Indigenous self-determination

[Dirty Commie]

This is a vague question, but what does everyone think about indigenous peoples right to self determination (the right of aboriginal people to stay independent from the country which they are in)

[iloveatomickitten]

I'd say all people have the "right" to self determination, indigenous or foriegn.

[Dirty Commie]

But to the extent of being independent from the nation that may have povided them with modernized farming, agriculture, etc?
I think so entirely, and so far to the point where they have the right to be totaly independent and recognized as their own state by the world if the people choose to be.

[Cobra]

If the indigenous people are Egalitarian and most the people want independence, then they have every right to be. However, I don't think fascists like they Tibetans who want to own slaves should be able to rule themselves.


being independent from the nation that may have povided them with modernized farming

Ya, it really pisses me off how the IMF and World Bank have been trying to force indigenous people to use "Modern" farming techniques. "Modern farming" really is a disaster for many indigenous people. In South America they have been trying to replace the highly efficient slash and burn farming techniques (all they need is a machete, some seeds and some matches) with modern ones (where they need expensive machinery, oil, fertilizer, pesticides, and need to replace their machinery and have it repaired every few years). Modern farming is just too expensive for many people. And the biggest problem with modern farming is that it is unsustainable. Modern farming forces people to grow just one type of crop that they are totaly dependent on. If that one crop gets some sort of disease, then there is going to be mass starvation. Indigenous people often expect that not all of their crops will survive, so they will plant a wide variaty of them. So if, for example, all their bananas get a disease and all die off, then they still have enough beans, squash, and corn to survive off of. Even if the indigenous people can't rule themselves, they should at least be allowed to keep using their traditional farming methods.

[redstar2000]

It's a thorny problem.

Westerners have a marked tendency to "idealize" indigenous peoples without much regard for the realities of their lives, good and bad.

Being exploited and tyrannized by a tribal elite, for example, is just as bad as being under any other kind of ruling class.

Some indigenous peoples have some very nasty customs -- wife and child beating being outstanding examples.

Then there is the matter of technology. "Slash and burn" agriculture may be "sustainable"...provided there's a whole lot of land and not very many people. But when modern medicines are introduced and the death-rate falls, "slash and burn" agriculture runs into the problem of field exhaustion...and there's no place to move on to.

I think that sooner or later the indigenous peoples must be fully integrated into modern society.

Needless to say, the carrot is always more effective in these matters than the stick...but those folks must be made aware that the carrot exists. Therefore, I would suggest a lavish "affirmative action" educational program...any indigenous kid who wants it will be granted a bag full of extra goodies to attend a modern school -- two bags for females.

This will doubtless mean the end, in the long run, of all the old cultures.

But consider the alternative: you would have to totally isolate the culture you wanted to save from all outside influence...and I think it's "too late" for that.

Or we can just muddle along as we do now...with the same result in the long run.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I am against any form of self-determination. What would you think if a bunch of white guys got together and felt like starting the nation of the Aryan brotherhood? I look at nationalism among blacks and natives the exact same way. Any nation formed on that basis of race or ethnicity is going to be reactionary to the core I say.

[roman]

Midnight wrote: I am against any form of self-determination. What would you think if a bunch of white guys got together and felt like starting the nation of the Aryan brotherhood? I look at nationalism among blacks and natives the exact same way. Any nation formed on that basis of race or ethnicity is going to be reactionary to the core I say.

This is a very ahistorical and unmarxist way of looking at the issue. There are vast differences between a historically oppressed people demanding self determination and an oppressor nation nationalism. Maybe your chauvinist blinders prevent you from seeing this.

The fact is that people historically tend to not only be oppressed along class lines, but also along cultural and national lines. To deny this is to deny history and is profoundly unmarxist.

There are lots of ways people address the question of self-determination. One is to uphold self-determination as some kind of absolute moral principle - this is narrow nationalism. Another way is the opportunism of the colonial/imperial/settler left that draws no distinctions between the national liberationism of historically oppressed peoples and the nationalism of its own imperial bourgeoisie. This chauvinist view makes no distinctions between the national liberation of the Dine or Puerto Ricans and the nationalism of the NAZIS. The above writer is a great example of this chauvinist view.

Then there is the communist view of national liberation. Communists support national liberation when it helps advance the world toward communism - the ending of all oppression. A big part of advancing the world to communism is defeating imperialism, which means supporting real national liberation. In the context of the USA, since the white workingclass is a bought off reactionary labor aristocracy, the only hope of creating a socialist base in North America is through the socialist national liberation of captive nations.

It is kind of funny that the above writer asks about establishing a nation for White people. What does the writer think the United States is? The United States was set up as a White settler nation from the beginning - like Israel or Apartheid South Africa. The settler oppressors advance their entire nation (including their petty-bourgeois so called "working class") by cannibalizing and enslaving other peoples. And, when the settlers had firm control in North America, they moved on plunder the rest of the Americas, Africa, and Asia. The fact that the United States has created nominal legal and political rights for captive peoples means little. The fact that the white imperialists have created a tokenish colored neo-colonial leadership to manage the super-exploitation and genocide of the captive peoples also means little. Remember Marx's distinction between de facto and de jure rights. Although it tends to never make a dent in the chauvinism of white leftists, I will cites facts about ongoing massive repression and genocide of captive nations. The continuing depopulation of the "South West" of Mexicans, the massive imprisonment of New Africans (in my lifetime 1/3 new african males will have been in prison), massive social control in the guise of social services, the state's genocidal targeting of ghettos with drugs, massive state repression of revolutionary leadership, assasinations, police death squads, the militarization of police - especially in ghettos, etc. I could go on and on. But this should be old news to anyone who claims to be "left". Of course there are material reasons why this doesn't sink in among members of the white "left". Reading John Sakai's _Settlers_ will add alot of context. I guess I should stop being amazed that in the context of continued genocide, Americans who identify as leftists chime in to critize the national liberation of those who are fighting for their very existence.

As for groups like the Aryan Brotherhood, they are not about national liberation from oppression - they are made up of lower class whites (often working class) who are pissed off that they aren't getting a big enough of piece of the imperial pie. They blame the jewish bankers and liberals for stealing the spoils of imperial plunder. They want a bigger cut. In this way, their politics are not very different than most traditional white unions and working class groups. They seek a more even distribution of wealth among white Americans and to hell with the rest of the world.

Being communist means supporting the national liberation of captive nations within North America.

For more info:
http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?boar...&num=1073960945 (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=theory&action=display&num=1073960945)
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/profil...iles/lwwch.html
http://colours.mahost.org/articles/sakai.html
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/books/...s/balagoon.html
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/mt/imp97/index.html

[SittingBull47]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 04:06 PM
I am against any form of self-determination. What would you think if a bunch of white guys got together and felt like starting the nation of the Aryan brotherhood? I look at nationalism among blacks and natives the exact same way. Any nation formed on that basis of race or ethnicity is going to be reactionary to the core I say.
Well, i see your point. However, if you had other indegenous groups they can eliminate each other but that would promote race war.

But the important thing is, it's not all about the color of the skin. People should be able to form sovereign nations on the basis of political affiliations.

[Nickademus]

self-determination is an interesting thing but i think we have determine between the two different types of self determination. first of all, there is internal and external self-determination. the second is what was mentioned before .... essentially becoming one's own country. what's so terribly wrong with that? if that type of self-determination hadn't occured the USSR would still be together ....... etc. etc.

the second type is internal self-determination. it essentially means keeping a connection with the state while being able to rule one's people much to their own liking. canada has started taking a step in this direction. the Nisga'a Treaty (which gave the Nisga'a peoples ..... first nations peoples... numerous rights including land and governance rights) has created a separate sphere of life in canada for the Nisga'a. kinda hard to explain, but i suggest anyone interested in this topic look into it more. you'll find it somewhere on the web either at the indian affairs website .. www.inac-ainc.gc.ca or on a nisga'a website