Re: [savetara.com] Re: indigenous peoples?
- 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.
----- Original Message -----
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
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
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
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:
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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).
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 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
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
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
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 *
- Occupation of ancestral lands? <check>
Common ancestry with original occupants? <check, though 'original
occupants' is always arguable>
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
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.