Sandanistas and MASURATASA

[Nickademus]

I'm wondering if anyone knows about the Sandanistas and the Miskito peoples. I don't know much about the Sandanistas treatment of the Miskitos but recently came across some limited information in the autobiography of Russell Means (Where White Men Fear to Tread), a very powerful AIM and Native leader in the USA and Canada. AIM originally supported the Sandanistas but when Means actually went to visit the Miskito peoples he stopped supporting them. Anyone have some insight they can share or point me into some resources?

Thanks.

[Valkyrie]

maybe this: which I wasn't aware of before, if it's true.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2384

[Valkyrie]

Another source.

http://www.spatial.maine.edu/~onsrud/Landt.../Nicaragua.html (http://www.spatial.maine.edu/~onsrud/Landtenure/CountryReport/Nicaragua.html)

unbelievable. I've always supported the Sandanistas too.. but if you put in the two key words in a search-- tons of references show up about it.

Apparently, they relocated the Native people off their land, when they assumed power. Not cool at all. :(

[Nickademus]

well i heard the part about taking the young boys for militay service. but i'm really more concerned about what was done to the indigenous peoples (the miskito peoples) who in general lived autonomously prior to the sandanista regime. but thankx for the link anyway.

[Valkyrie]

If you find anything more about it, I'd be interested to hear. These links didn't elaborate but the first link states this:


Unlike the Somoza regime, the Sandinistas did not even pretend to include democracy as a serious political objective. They forcibly relocated tens of thousands of Moskito Indians from the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua, and imprisoned, tortured and murdered hundreds of them. According to the Nicaraguan Commission of Jurists, the Sandinistas carried out over 8,000 political executions within three years of the revolution. The new communist regime succeeded in setting up a brutal tyranny that would distinguish itself as having one of the worst human rights records in Latin America.


The second link says this:

Although coastal inhabitants had been fortunate enough to remain on the periphery of much of the conflict and upheaval associated with the Sandinista Revolution, the Sandinistas required their participation in the new society they intended to create. The Indian and Black settlements along the coast had for years farmed in communal fashion, though they tended to divide their land parcels and harvests on an individual level. In many senses, they would have seemed to operate in conformance with the Sandinistas socialist agenda of cooperative, communally owned farms where harvests would be shared according to need. However, the Sandinistas insisted on reforming the coastal dwellers' customary system of tenure so that it would more closely resemble the experimental models of cooperative farming which the State was implementing elsewhere. These attempts were met with strong resistance, and in order to accomplish land reforms as they had envisioned, the Sandinistas had to adopt harsh tactics reminiscent of many of the previous regimes to which they had been opposed. Many coastal Indians and Blacks were relocated to settlement villages, their lands were taken over, and their local institutions of buying, selling, and lending were forbidden (Powelson and Stock, 1990,p.344-353

[RedComrade]

The first link is absolutely ridiculous and should not be treated as a credible-objective source. Front-page magazine is an extreme right publication that publishes David Horowitz for christ sake, the man is practically a fascist! Even it's exagerated claims of 8,000 political executions in three years are not particularly outstanding when one takes into account the fact that the Sandanista were than embroiled in a bloody civil war where there very survival was at stake. War and revolution aren't preety, but their child, the Sandanista government, was sure as hell a lot preetier than Nicuragua under Somoza or it's current free market bannana republic.

[Valkyrie]

I wasn't aware that that first link came from an anti-leftist source. It was the first link that came up in the search. However, I posted the second link to subtantiate it and there were tons of other links refering to the same thing.

No, it's not ok with me if the Indigenous people of North & South America and Canada are treated with ongoing abuses and genocide. *IF* the Leftist governments are doing it, it sure the hell doesn't make it any more diserable. In fact, it is far worse. The aboriginal people have been fighting for THEIR survival for much longer and their particular viewpoint, not to be discounted, is that the European colonizers and their descendants are an intransigent occupying force, one that nearly decimated an entire race of people. It will ALWAYS be that way. The US in Iraq, the British in N. Ireland, the Jews in Palestine, etc, that is fucking peanuts by comparison.

I can't stand the fucking hypocrisy.

[socialistfuture]

I watched a documentary a while ago on it called ¡No Pasarán. Anyway it showed the reason for moving the Indians as a safety concern - the contras were recruting Indians so the sandanistas wanted to move them so they couldn't be used against them. it was on a large scale and many of the indians had not had a lot of communication with non indians - some of them calling the sandanistas names - comparing them to the conquistidors (some thinking they were conquistidors - spanish speaking non-indians). they did not choose to move they were forced.

Later the Sandanistas admitted they had gone overboard. So you see it was not as simple as some people make it out to be. The intention was to intergrate them into the revolution and protect their borders -

I think it is a good question in general - how do u treat indiginous peoples on a revolution - for instance if there was a revolution in Brazil - Do u leave amazonian indians to themselves or try to educate them - teach them to read etc.. cause that changes there whole style of life. slowly (sometimes real fast) a lot of cultures and languages are dying out - Personally I really like Indians and I would love to go to parts of america, south america and canada and elsewhere to meet and learn from them.

[Valkyrie]

Well, you don't have too go to far to meet one. I qualify enough to be tribal- enrolled in the Iroquois Six Nations Confederacy, Mohawk, --paternal grandmother and both grandparents are "full-blood" - a term I dislike. I'm not the traditional Indian, however, neither cultural or reservational.

I've thought about that problem myself when it was first posed to me-- that Indian's should come off the reservation,--- I was at first appalled, but I think it's a rather good idea in retrospect. Their lands suck! and being isolated and segregated is not helping them much. They are coming off the reservations here in the US of no choice anyway and the younger generations, no doubt are very culturally mainstream. I don't think their would be much opposition to join a communist society with all lands claims relinquished as they have always held that noone "owns" the land.

[Valkyrie]

Yeah, the Amazon Indians I think should be left to themselves. They are self-sustaining in their own way of life which does not rely on 21st century amenities. Nor do they deal in capitalism. I think all those sorts of self-sustaining Indigenous populations should remain as is, if that's what they'd like.

Native People in the US & Canada are torn between cultures and eras and their traditional ways of life are forever relegated to somewhere in the past. The traditions being upheld now are moreless symbolic and the reservation experiment we can be certain to say is a failure. They are forced to sustain themselves competively in capitalist society with resources that they do not have.
So, unless they could restore their hunting and fishing, and agricultural ways, and be given decent land tracts, I don't see how its possible otherwise.

[socialistfuture]

I agree that tribes that have no or very limited contact should be lef tto live life the way they have done for generations (certain amaxon triibes etc).

I think some of the reserves work better than others. Rules like no drinking I imagine would be good but sometimes are not followed closely.

In tibet when the Chinese came in they destroyed monastaries and killed lamas and tried to destroy the culture and religion - many of the minorities there are persecuted and told to adapt to be part of greater china. I think that is sad.

so many native peoples have been persecuted and culturally destroyed. I am as white as it comes and can only speak english - I feel as if I have something missing. I think often minority or indiginous peoples are drawn to socialism - especially in latin america.

prehaps one of the problems with the past has been socialists feel they have the right to tell indigenous peoples what is right for them instead of letting them become a part of the decision making process and letting them rule themselves with support and help.

The Zapatistas I guess is a good example of self-rule. Tho socialists/communists do not support them and say they are not marxist. Marcos was a marxist guerilla before he joined them - i think they have socialist aspects to them as well as anarchist.

anyway we should most definatly do our part to help indiginous peoples.