Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [savetara.com] Re: indigenous peoples?

Expand Messages
  • carmel diviney
    Everything I read in what you have posted Sean can easily be applied to Tara. You see it differently so I guess that is your interpretation . Luckily Kathy
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 1, 2008
      Everything I read in what you have posted Sean can easily be applied to Tara. You see it differently so I guess that is your interpretation . Luckily Kathy Sinnott dos believe we are indigenous. To not believe it would seriously affect her presentation of Parliamentary questions.

      I havent gone through the PDF you include yet but there is one other point. At the Vigil all faiths and non faiths are welcomed but it is no secret that for the most part, those that hold the fire and its community are Pagan. Druids, Shamans etc - all indigenous spiritual paths. Paganism connects us with the earth spirituality of the people who lived here thousands of years ago so anyone who practises Paganism carrying on these beliefs even adapted to modern day can be considered indigenous too. The Mayans, The Aboriginies, Tuvans, Inuit, people all over the world at the same time all practised a similar form of earth spirituality and here we had the Druids. This was replaced by Christianity as you know and all forms of Druidry/ Shamanism was demonised and thus the majority lost their connection to their roots. But this indigenous spirituality/religion/faith/practise lives on and in increasing numbers.


      Carmel


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: seanachai51
      To: savetara@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 11:51 PM
      Subject: [savetara.com] Re: indigenous peoples?


      The description of an indigenous peoples found in Wikipedia, echoes
      the "working definition" recognized by the United nations. It does not
      grant corporations "free reign to plow under, ignore, or otherwise
      obliterate what they will". While the UN does recognize the rights of
      an indigenous people to protect their culture and heritage, it is up
      to each member nation who have signed the declaration, to abide by its
      terms.

      http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/declaration.html

      As for protecting the "languages, social customs, artefacts, cultures
      and sacred sites" of a country as a whole, it's up to the government
      of each country to establish laws protecting those rights, which in
      the case of Ireland it had, until Dick Roach and company hijacked the
      system and rewrote the laws to benefit themselves.

      The following excerpts are from a UN document, WORKSHOP ON DATA
      COLLECTION AND DISSAGREGATION FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (New York, 19-21
      January 2004) in which the "working definition" of an indigenous
      people is described.

      2. After long consideration of the issues involved, the Special
      Rapporteur [Jose R. Martinez Cobo] who prepared the above-mentioned
      study offered a working definition of "indigenous communities, peoples
      and nations". In doing so he expressed a number of basic ideas to
      provide the intellectual framework for this effort, which included the
      right of indigenous peoples themselves to define what and who is
      indigenous. The working definition reads as follows:

      "Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a
      historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies
      that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from
      other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or
      parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society
      and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future
      generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as
      the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with
      their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system.

      "This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an
      extended period reaching into the present of one or more of the
      following factors:

      a) Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them;

      b) Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands;

      c) Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as
      religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous
      community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.);

      d) Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as
      the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as
      the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language);

      e) Residence on certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of
      the world;

      f) Other relevant factors.

      "On an individual basis, an indigenous person is one who belongs to
      these indigenous populations through self-identification as indigenous
      (group consciousness) and is recognized and accepted by these
      populations as one of its members (acceptance by the group).

      The PDF can be found at:

      www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/PFII%202004%20WS.1%203%20Definition.doc


      --- In savetara@yahoogroups.com, "Ellen E Hopman" <Saille333@...> wrote:
      This entry pretty much guarantees that no languages, social customs,
      artefacts, cultures, sacred sites, or peoples in Europe, with a tiny
      group of exceptions, need to be respected. It gives corporations free
      reign to plow under, ignore, or otherwise obliterate what they will. The nice thing is that anyone can edit a Wikipedia article (hint).
      > Ellen




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Tadhg Crowley
      Sean, Carmel Yes I do think the UN definitions were created with a particular focus and goal i.e. to focus on traditional or tribal indigenous peoples,
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 1, 2008
        Sean, Carmel
        Yes I do think the UN definitions were created with a particular focus and
        goal i.e. to focus on "traditional" or "tribal indigenous" peoples, with the
        intent of their protection. However I do not believe that a person from a
        place and culture is not "indigenous" simply because they do not fit someone
        else's "definition" of what they decide is indigenous.

        Irrespective of the fact that at least 1 side of my ancestors were not
        Irish. I firmly feel indigenous to this island i.e to place, the places I
        lived and grew up in in Cork, and I firmly feel connected to the culture of
        this place.
        Just because some of my culture and way of life has been diluted or
        perverted by both state and corporate imperialism does not mean I am less
        indigenous.

        Just because I don't live like my earliest ancestors did (i.e. not living in
        subsistence), speak like them (old irish) etc. does not make me less
        indigenous.

        I am native to this place whether the UN says I am or not. I would also
        propose that everyone who is working for the preservation of their culture,
        and the viability of their locality or native place - is indigenous.

        Please don't be restricted by the limitations of definitions or statements
        by organisations who either wear blinkers or have a narrow focus.

        Other "definitions" are as follows:
        Dictionary Definition of Native:
        4*:* belonging to or associated with one by birth
        6a grown, produced, or originating in a particular place or in the vicinity

        Dictionary definition of "Indigenous":
        "having originated in and being produced, growing, living, or occurring
        naturally in a particular region or environment <*indigenous* plants> <the *
        indigenous* culture>"

        Tadhg
      • Charles Burgess
        Occupation of ancestral lands? Common ancestry with original occupants?
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 5, 2008
          Occupation of ancestral lands? <check>
          Common ancestry with original occupants? <check, though 'original
          occupants' is always arguable>
          Language <check>

          Distinction from the dominant mainstream invasion culture is also
          slippery- if we purport to be outside of the mainstream we're simply
          steamrolled by it, but if we attempt to work with in it we sacrifice our
          indigenousness.

          It sounds to me like 'self-definition' and 'acceptance by the group' are
          the only two truly objective means of qualification

          >
          > "This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an
          > extended period reaching into the present of one or more of the
          > following factors:
          >
          > a) Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them;
          >
          > b) Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands;
          >
          > c) Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as
          > religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous
          > community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.);
          >
          > d) Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as
          > the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as
          > the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language);
          >
          > e) Residence on certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of
          > the world;
          >
          > f) Other relevant factors.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.