Three days ago Bolivia became the first South American nation to declare the right of indigenous people to govern themselves.

This, I believe is not only a really great thing in itself, but a required action in a continent full of cultural treasures in the form of indigenous tribes that are quickly becoming eradicated.

Yes, indigenous peoples technically constituted over half of the Bolivian population, but this is an action that needs to be mirrored by all nations in the world. After all, who are we to chain entire cultures to conceptions such as nations, private property, etc, that they don't even believe in.

Anyway, cultural diversity loss is a pressing problem to prevent the whole world from becoming burger gulping, god-fearing and beer-bellied. Moreover, the sheer scale of human worldviews and perspectives that such tribes embody, in the form of languages and rituals; the information relating to the vegetation and terrain of areas is something we cannot hope to know easily. For such reasons, I believe all nations should follow course.

What say you?

Three days ago Bolivia became the first South American nation to declare the right of indigenous people to govern themselves...

Is that going to be like the US's version of a reservation, gvmt aid, and calling them self a Nation?

What say you?

Cultural Identity is a thing of the past. Welcome to Homogenized society.
South America maybe the last bastion of individual governance.
Asia, Australia, Europe and Russia are all slowly succumbing to the Cultural Juggernaut, The USA.

Here in australia, we are groping around for a national identity, finding one sufficiently close to the USA, to warrant our unthinking support. It's pathetic really.

Is that going to be like the US's version of a reservation, gvmt aid, and calling them self a Nation?

Hmm.. I doubt it.. the current president is himself an indigenous descendent, and his policies have been pro-indigenous autonomy throughout his career.

Cultural Identity is a thing of the past. Welcome to Homogenized society.
South America maybe the last bastion of individual governance.
Asia, Australia, Europe and Russia are all slowly succumbing to the Cultural Juggernaut, The USA.

If it truly is a thing of the past, that's really unfortunate.
If the cultural juggernaut does indeed conquer the world, it'll be only a sliver as interesting and rich, and barely functional.

Here in australia, we are groping around for a national identity, finding one sufficiently close to the USA, to warrant our unthinking support. It's pathetic really.

Very pathetic. Even though I'm not perfectly sure about the truth, the fact that your Aboriginal culture is now practically restricted to only museums, orientation centers and history textbooks is both a huge loss and blemish.

Three days ago Bolivia became the first South American nation to declare the right of indigenous people to govern themselves.

This, I believe is not only a really great thing in itself, but a required action in a continent full of cultural treasures in the form of indigenous tribes that are quickly becoming eradicated.

Well, you cheer now, but how will you react if those same people have "indigenous laws" that are discriminatory or abusive or ..whatever? Like that Liberian "custom" whereby if a girl gets raped, then she's shunned by her family and friends? Or if they adhere to female mutilation of the genitals? Or if they cut off a thief's hand if he's caught stealing?

You're all full of cheer and goodwill now, but ....what about when the shit hits the fan? You call those people "indigenous", but they're still humans, and humans have been doing nasty, dirty, violent things to other humans since the first human stood upright on the African plains. Don't give 'em too much credit, or you'll be sorry later.

Baron Max

Unlikely.
Very, very unlikely.
Again, the same point I was proving in that thread by the Esotericist.
Crime rate in tribal societies is very low. Even if it is present, they have their own workable laws and customs to deal with it. Moreover, sexual crime and discrimination in tribal communities is practically nil. Female-specific castration has almost been a sole feature of our civilisation; associating indigenous cultures with it is false.
The thief's hand is, to the best of my knowledge, fundamentalist Islam. I doubt its even commanded by the Quran.

About humans doing nasty, dirty, violent things, please... all that I've already said should be enough. Any anthropologist will testify.

Again, the same point I was proving in that thread by the Esotericist.
Crime rate in tribal societies is very low. Even if it is present, they have their own workable laws and customs to deal with it. Moreover, sexual crime and discrimination in tribal communities is practically nil. .....

Let me remind you ....our western civilization was once nothing but tribal societies. Then we formed larger groups, then we formed cities and towns. Then we began to deal with crime and punishment!

If humans still lived in small, cohesive, family groups, crime would be almost unheard of ...just like it probably was back in the old days. But we don't, do we? Nope, ....we've moved on. Just like those indigenous tribes will move on to cities and towns ......and lots of crime and nasty deeds.

Baron Max

who are we to chain entire cultures to conceptions such as nations, private property, etc, that they don't even believe in.

Anyway, cultural diversity loss is a pressing problem to prevent the whole world from becoming burger gulping, god-fearing and beer-bellied. Moreover, the sheer scale of human worldviews and perspectives that such tribes embody, in the form of languages and rituals; the information relating to the vegetation and terrain of areas is something we cannot hope to know easily. For such reasons, I believe all nations should follow course.

What say you?

Here here!:cheers:

Let me remind you ....our western civilization was once nothing but tribal societies. Then we formed larger groups, then we formed cities and towns. Then we began to deal with crime and punishment!

If humans still lived in small, cohesive, family groups, crime would be almost unheard of ...just like it probably was back in the old days. But we don't, do we? Nope, ....we've moved on. Just like those indigenous tribes will move on to cities and towns ......and lots of crime and nasty deeds.

Baron Max

Baron this isn't about whether they evolve or move into a larger society its whether they are FORCED to move into a larger society because their lands are seized or because missionaries tell them that their god is 'wrong' and to take on an occidental god and whether they have a choice or not to keep their indigenous languages. Of course there are those among the young who will leave if they choose, choice being the key.

Baron this isn't about whether they evolve or move into a larger society its whether they are FORCED to move into a larger society because their lands are seized or because missionaries tell them that their god is 'wrong' and to take on an occidental god and whether they have a choice or not to keep their indigenous languages. Of course there are those among the young who will leave if they choose, choice being the key.

Agreed. But it's no different to any other situation that's existed thousands of times before in the past. And look at the myriad of problems! Look at how Pakistan is now being divided and subdivided by "indigenous" people trying to live how they want to live -- the Taliban!

Look at Europe, esp eastern Europe, and how it's been so freakin' divided by "indigenous" peoples wanting to live as they want. Look at Yugoslavia? Could that freakin' area be any more divided by "indigenous" people than it is now? ...and yet there is still fighting going on there between those people ...who just want to live like they want.

No, Lucy, it's not so nice as you'd like to think. Look at the world history, look at how "indigenous" peoples have lived and ruled and fought.

Baron Max

Agreed. But it's no different to any other situation that's existed thousands of times before in the past. And look at the myriad of problems! Look at how Pakistan is now being divided and subdivided by "indigenous" people trying to live how they want to live -- the Taliban!

Look at Europe, esp eastern Europe, and how it's been so freakin' divided by "indigenous" peoples wanting to live as they want. Look at Yugoslavia? Could that freakin' area be any more divided by "indigenous" people than it is now? ...and yet there is still fighting going on there between those people ...who just want to live like they want.

No, Lucy, it's not so nice as you'd like to think. Look at the world history, look at how "indigenous" peoples have lived and ruled and fought.

Baron Max

The Taliban is a fundamentalist Islamic anti-modern, anti-west group. Nevertheless, a part of this civilization.

I'll refrain on commenting on my anarchist views in relation to (what was) Yugoslavia.

Well, you cheer now, but how will you react if those same people have "indigenous laws" that are discriminatory or abusive or ..whatever? Like that Liberian "custom" whereby if a girl gets raped, then she's shunned by her family and friends? Or if they adhere to female mutilation of the genitals? Or if they cut off a thief's hand if he's caught stealing?

You're all full of cheer and goodwill now, but ....what about when the shit hits the fan? You call those people "indigenous", but they're still humans, and humans have been doing nasty, dirty, violent things to other humans since the first human stood upright on the African plains. Don't give 'em too much credit, or you'll be sorry later.

Baron Max

It's embarrassing how little you know of the wisdom of native american spirituality of place as opposed to territoriality. It might benefit you greatly to branch out your world view a bit, please see, God is Red
By Vine Deloria (click the book)
http://books.google.com/books?id=HpFIwSxBML0C&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=5&sig=ACfU3U1o1_MPxLoTZ9EpwIcU5-lDI7zneQ (http://books.google.com/books?id=HpFIwSxBML0C&pg=PR8&lpg=PR8&dq=God+is+Red&source=bl&ots=StDnkkLY3l&sig=wYVEAlnsTVOlTW6793eZlgGwXZE&hl=en&ei=mzx9Ss-xBJLWNdSgyd0C&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

Three days ago Bolivia became the first South American nation to declare the right of indigenous people to govern themselves.

This, I believe is not only a really great thing in itself, but a required action in a continent full of cultural treasures in the form of indigenous tribes that are quickly becoming eradicated.

Yes, indigenous peoples technically constituted over half of the Bolivian population, but this is an action that needs to be mirrored by all nations in the world. After all, who are we to chain entire cultures to conceptions such as nations, private property, etc, that they don't even believe in.

Anyway, cultural diversity loss is a pressing problem to prevent the whole world from becoming burger gulping, god-fearing and beer-bellied. Moreover, the sheer scale of human worldviews and perspectives that such tribes embody, in the form of languages and rituals; the information relating to the vegetation and terrain of areas is something we cannot hope to know easily. For such reasons, I believe all nations should follow course.

What say you?

I'm all for it. . . unfortunately, the governors, the people of the states affected (Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana, Nebraska, which includes all of Yellowstone!) , and the federal government aren't real keen on the idea. . . .
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/83/USA_Map_2008_2.png/800px-USA_Map_2008_2.png
Republic of Lakotah (link) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Lakotah)

Unfortunately, the Baron is right, currently, this is only one tribe of Lakotah, not the majority of it's elders. . . . yet. . . .
So, no country would dare recognize them. However, should the day arise when they get a majority vote of the tribes? according to the UN charter on native peoples rights, it appears Venezuela would be the first to recognize them. lol (yeah, right.)
Here's the BIA's response.
Gary Garrison of the BIA said that the group's withdrawal "doesn't mean anything". "These are not legitimate tribal governments elected by the people ... when they begin the process of violating other people's rights, breaking the law, they're going to end up like all the other groups that have declared themselves independent - usually getting arrested and being put in jail".

It's pathetic really.

Really? That's really quite subjective. It was, after all, totally inevitable regardless of which culture became the alpha. On any world, in any corner of the universe, where intelligence arises, there will always be one homogenized identity that eventually comes up out of the fray. I'm certain that if it were the French or Chinese identity that held dominance in the world today, people would be saying the same thing about their culture; "pathetic!" Because it's human to hate that which holds dominance. In this little permutation of history it ended up being the British "way" that has become dominant. And, why not? Even the British aren't really all that homogenized, but a result of many immigrating peoples. Perhaps that is a contributing factor to its ultimate success.

I happen to think you've jumped the gun in your judgment, though. The "American" cultural identity is the just a variant of the British one. While I think the "norms" of business (the core language, dress, economics, etc.) will forever be established by the British, I don't think the Indians, Arabs, and especially Chinese have ceased to contribute substantially to that identity which is, as yet, unformed and will not totally gel for another fifty to 100 years.

~String

Really? That's really quite subjective. It was, after all, totally inevitable regardless of which culture became the alpha. On any world, in any corner of the universe, where intelligence arises, there will always be one homogenized identity that eventually comes up out of the fray. I'm certain that if it were the French or Chinese identity that held dominance in the world today, people would be saying the same thing about their culture; "pathetic!" Because it's human to hate that which holds dominance. In this little permutation of history it ended up being the British "way" that has become dominant. And, why not? Even the British aren't really all that homogenized, but a result of many immigrating peoples. Perhaps that is a contributing factor to its ultimate success.


When I said, Pathetic I was referring to the "groping" for cultural identity that is inherent in so many Australians. We are polarized between the City with its variant ethnicities, and the rural country, with its homogenized culture. We attempt to latch on to the few events in history that we have participated, (and to a limited extent), and use them to define our culture. It doesn't work, because it does not reflect the true character of many Australians. People without a culture.

Also, The merits of a culture are subjective, It isn't fair to say, that culture X is pathetic/immoral, because your own cultural leanings are subjective.



I happen to think you've jumped the gun in your judgment, though. The "American" cultural identity is the just a variant of the British one. While I think the "norms" of business (the core language, dress, economics, etc.) will forever be established by the British, I don't think the Indians, Arabs, and especially Chinese have ceased to contribute substantially to that identity which is, as yet, unformed and will not totally gel for another fifty to 100 years.


In the colonial days, culture was nearly impossible to completely replace. Usually, the foreign culture was concentrated in the cities.
Now, with the mass proliferation of media, and the spread of US culture, youngsters are conditioned towards it. I'm one of them. I grew up paradoxically, distancing myself from my migrant heritage. Given the extent to which Popular culture has grown, and the dominant position the US has established, in both education mediums and cultural mediums, I doubt J-Pop or C-pop is going to overtake it.

It's embarrassing how little you know of the wisdom of native american spirituality of place as opposed to territoriality.

Your views of the Native Americans are soooo quaint and romantic ...and so very, very wrong.

The Native American tribes fought almost constantly with their neighbors over territorial rights and hunting rights and campsite rights. While seldom full-scale wars, they took lives on a regular basis much like a family feud.

You should read a little history instead of the romantic notions of the NA. They were warlike and vicious, and they were territorial in the extreme.

Baron Max

Your views of the Native Americans are soooo quaint and romantic ...and so very, very wrong.

The Native American tribes fought almost constantly with their neighbors over territorial rights and hunting rights and campsite rights. While seldom full-scale wars, they took lives on a regular basis much like a family feud.

You should read a little history instead of the romantic notions of the NA. They were warlike and vicious, and they were territorial in the extreme.

Baron Max

Which highlights our modern social obligation to revere everything Native American. Historically, they were un-remarkable; having a similar social and technological evolution as most other stone age cultures. They followed the exact same pattern as everybody else. Small hunter-gatherer communities amid a larger identity: disorganized "shaman" type religions, flint cutting edges, patriarchal chieftain leadership, a healthier (YES, HEALTHIER) diet and lifestyle (composed of a more balanced diet: which nature can readily supply if the population stays small, the rise of cities meant the rise of the carbohydrate diet) and generally a more "equal" and peaceful life. People talk about the beauty and wisdom of the Native Americans (all of which, I agree are quite true), but that primitive beauty was--like that of the European, African and Asian pre-historical cultures--destined to fade away and be replaced by whatever society arose within its own peoples. The rise of cities, agriculture (not the small plots that the Americans were just starting to create), organized religion, central government and taxation has a way of stamping out such things. It happened all over the world and whether it came from within the N.A. cultures or outside, their lifestyle was destined to end, most probably unknown and unrecorded.

The only reason we are so aware of it now is because the Europeans stumbled upon the Native Americans before they could advance and at a time when Europeans had the desire and means to record such "beauty." Had such a discovery been made a few thousand years earlier, people wouldn't have even bothered trying to figure out who they were and just concentrated totally on the slaughter (which is not to say that the Europeans didn't do that with aplomb). But it's hard to imagine the Romans or Abyssinians stopping to figure out who they were before destroying them.

~String

Why not grant sovereignty to all ethnic groups?

I'd get to vote in the Irish-American, German-American, Italian-American and French-American elections.

Your views of the Native Americans are soooo quaint and romantic ...and so very, very wrong.

The Native American tribes fought almost constantly with their neighbors over territorial rights and hunting rights and campsite rights. While seldom full-scale wars, they took lives on a regular basis much like a family feud.

You should read a little history instead of the romantic notions of the NA. They were warlike and vicious, and they were territorial in the extreme.

Baron Max

Yes, all indigenous tribes have had conflicts. However, 'periodic' would be a better adjective to describe them rather than 'almost constantly'. These periodic fights also were necessary to maintain balance in terms of resources and power. They were a part of the way of life that was successful for millenia more than our way of life is turning out to be. Also, the tribes weren't sworn enemies. There was trade, inter-tribal marriages, etc. The periodic fights were just a measure of making sure one tribe didn't begin to dominate over the diversity present then.

People talk about the beauty and wisdom of the Native Americans (all of which, I agree are quite true), but that primitive beauty was--like that of the European, African and Asian pre-historical cultures--destined to fade away and be replaced by whatever society arose within its own peoples. The rise of cities, agriculture (not the small plots that the Americans were just starting to create), organized religion, central government and taxation has a way of stamping out such things. It happened all over the world and whether it came from within the N.A. cultures or outside, their lifestyle was destined to end, most probably unknown and unrecorded.

No, I don't think it was at all destined. What might be more precise is that after a curious turn of events in the fertile crescent about 10 millennia ago when one random tribe had a fancy towards totalitarian agriculture, the rest fell into place like dominoes. The only choice the other tribes had was: Become like us or die. Most of the ethnic 'diversity' we see today is a byproduct of that chain reaction; the part that agreed to comply. The Native Americans didn't. And hence their fate.

I think all the posters here, and especially Baron, interested enough in this topic should read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. Quite an eye-opener.

Yes, all indigenous tribes have had conflicts. However, 'periodic' would be a better adjective to describe them rather than 'almost constantly'. These periodic fights also were necessary to maintain balance in terms of resources and power. They were a part of the way of life that was successful for millenia more than our way of life is turning out to be. Also, the tribes weren't sworn enemies. There was trade, inter-tribal marriages, etc. The periodic fights were just a measure of making sure one tribe didn't begin to dominate over the diversity present then.

The modern world has conflict over resources and power (now in the form of international influence). I don't see why it's considered good or noble when Indians did it, but less so when done by the American government, China, Europe, etc.

The modern world has conflict over resources and power (now in the form of international influence). I don't see why it's considered good or noble when Indians did it, but less so when done by the American government, China, Europe, etc.

Because that wasn't with the intention of hoarding resources and power. It was with the motive of keeping it balanced.

Because that wasn't with the intention of hoarding resources and power. It was with the motive of keeping it balanced.

And why were the allocation of resources becoming unbalanced? Because one group was trying to take more than its fair share?

Good point.
Still, one group probably wasn't trying to take more than its fair share. More plausible, I'd think, is the fact that in different circumstances, different tribes enjoyed more prosperity than others. If good times come, they aren't going to send them away. However, more than a certain amount of prosperity for one tribe will lead to ecological and tribal imbalance; hence, prompting other tribes to bring that one back to its rightful place.

In fact, I just thought of something that might account for the frequent, non-bitter, balance-maintaining conflicts between tribes. It could be possible that dominant tribes, in order to prove their dominance and maintain it, but not, against all ecological and sociological prudence, to increase, attacked other tribes from time-to-time. I'm sure I've read somewhere that it was usually tribes that attacked others, not a single dominant one; which gives off the idea that tribes attacked others just to remind them that they're not to be taken for granted. And also to exercise and keep their small troops up-to-scratch in case there was a real threat; I've also read that somewhere.

But to be honest, I can't be that sure about what I'm saying; I'm no anthropologist. If you know better (and know that you know better ;)), correct me.