Well none of us should be suprised. Eventhough this declaration is non-binding (like all other UN declarations) it clearly proved to be too much for Nation-States to accept (in good faith.)
Who can blame them? Can you imagine Indigenous Nations having a right to their own territory (in principle)? Can you imagine Nation-States like Canada having to ask Indigenous Nations permission (in theory) to relocate them? Or indigenous histories, languages, customs, and traditions having (the conceptual) right to exist? I know, it’s unthinkable… and so the Nation States, remaining ever true themselves as Masters of their own Universe - agreed to shelve the United Nations declaration on Indigenous Rights.
Well, no matter.
I mean, what would any of us really gain from having this? Sure it would be a benchmark, something the UN can to refer to when writing a report on the deplorable disfunctional conduct of Nation-States towards us — but beyond that?
I have long since believed that a right is not something you can be given. Nor is it something you can buy or trade, get through negotiations or state-stamped approval — and nor is a right something made real by writing it down, or something legitimized through enforcing it.
Rights, at least the most basic ones are inherent — and are only as valid as they are actively exercised. But not using one’s rights does not mean they do not exist. It just means that our rights may be readily altered or forbidden. But then that can happen anyway.
I think this notion of rights is especially important to Indigenous Nations - because for hundreds of years we have been TOLD what our rights are. Our land and ability to live has been restricted. We have been forced into Camps, institutions - our traditions have been outlawed, our languages have been forbidden, our resources and ability to meet our needs has been purposely limited. We are even now treated as wards, incapable of handling our own affairs. Our Nations are controlled by state-designed pseudo-governments. We are forced to enter into foreign courts and submit to foreign authorities to address the crimes and actions of those foreign Nation-States. We have no external resources, no International Courts will hear us. No part of the United Nations will directly help us — and no other Nation-State would dare step in and assist. The would more likely try to get a share of the prize.
As intimidating and discouraging as this may be, it’s also not a big deal. I mean, none of this is new, right? We already know all this - we live it everyday, and we cannot forget any of it because our history is in our blood.
That is why I mention the idea of inherent rights — because it is up to us and us alone to do what we need to do for ourselves and our Nations, our ancestors and our future generations.
Yes, we are inherently Sovereign Nations - but we must conduct ourselves as Sovereign Nations otherwise we can only continue to be subordinate to the Nation-States we are surrounded by.
That is not to say there is no place for negotiations or discussion with Nation-States though — but that is secondary to our Fundamental Needs and our inherent rights (which I say while thinking about how the bottom-line for a State is about money. Not survival, not freedom or peace or equality - but “how much is this gonna cost us”.)
I don’t care what anyone says, money always come second. It is not “the provider” it is one means of providing. Just think about residential schools and justice: Does money provide justice for a child being murdered in a residential school? Is money enough justice?
Of course not. It’s just “the best we’re going to get right now.”
The same goes for any settlement for any land claim. That’s a standard legal tactic used by the party that’ll lose if it goes to court. (It doesn’t matter how much money is offered - what matters is that it is being offered.)
As far as our Rights, our freedom, our ability to meet our own needs without having to compromise our integrity or sacrifice our Nationhood — there is no amount of money equal, even if there are some more than willing to settle for less.
There is only our Rights, our freedom, our ability to meet our own needs. And there is only us to make it happen.
No UN declaration, no state-sponsored program, and no well-worded treaty can do it. These things can help - make this significant transition more palatable for States, maybe even easier on us - but again, this is not about what a State wants or prefers. It is about what we Need.
Only We can meet our own needs.
Ahniwanika
ps. I must add here that I do not suggest “by any means necessary” that means we are willing to become exactly like those who put us in the position we have been and now find ourselves in. This to me is as unacceptable as allowing things to continue as they have.
Thank you Ahni. This is so true. We have power within ourselves and that is what we must use. We must stand up for our values, our beliefs. we need to DO it. “Government” power is an illusion. Our power is real.
Bruce
Hey Bruce. You are definitely right. I also think it makes little sense for us to just wait for things to happen, before we do anything. Many (if not all) of the issues and problems around us have always plagued (western) society. Some get sort-of resolved, but then they come back “new and improved,” and we basically get stuck having to go through the same motions. Poverty for one — it’s absurdly easy to solve, but then why doesn’t it?
Anyways, it’s better for us to take the first step…
We are millions, as you point out, all with our own beliefs, values, and visions. And there are millions of things we can do. But only some will have long-term, beneficial results.
Respectfully,, Ahni.
Inherent right… that is the secret to all of this. It is like self-governance, do the original people have a right to make “Laws” that are out side of what corperate/government agendas are? And are those agenda makers accountable to those “Laws?”
Because;It is not self-governance if we have to get permission to in fact pass a “Law” or any. Where does the corp/gov powers end and our’s begin?
Hello Carver! You’ve brought up some very important points, and shone some light on a matter that’s held us back for quite some time.
As I understand it, Indigenous People can make all the Laws they want - but they have no authority beyond reservation lines (or those territories they are ‘permitted’ to live on) or over any people outside of the line, regardless of who they are.
Technically speaking, the reverse is not true - because Indigenous Nations in Canada are managed and categorized as nothing more than municipalities, or townships (with special privileges) within Canada.
Now here’s the twist — like any municipality in Canada, the indigenous ones do not have sovereign authority - only in certain matters at best. And the federal Government can alter the rights of the people in, and of the municipality itself.
In other words, Canada can legally infringe upon any “Aboriginal right” (or any law for that matter) so long as there is a “substantial objective.” (e.g.. “development of agriculture, forestry, mining, and hydroelectric power…protection of the environment or endangered species, the building of infrastructure and the settlement of foreign populations to support those aims.” This according to the Courts decision in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia.)
Self-Governance is literally no different - nothing more than applied theory - which has any number of ways it can be subverted, undermined and erased all together. Ain it great!? Now let’s imagine the exact same policy applied to Canadian Citizens….
Another thing worth mentioning I think, is how the UN fits into this little scheme: The rights of Indigenous People worldwide as been a source of contention at the UN since at least the Universal declaration of human rights. Indigenous Rights are mentioned in it briefly — but states accepted this declaration only because it was so ambiguous… and also because the UN decided to adhere to something called the Blue Water thesis.
This theory/doctrine - basically says Indigenous Nations can not become “Real Nations” if they are enclosed by Nation-States - because, it says, ‘the territorial integrity of the Nation-State must be maintained.’
For any indigenous ‘municipality’ to have Real Nationhood, Canada would have to compromise it’s territorial integrity - since this is a no-no (something Nation States agree to) the only Nationhood an Indigenous Nation can really get is the theoretical kind. They will always have to be ultimately subordinate to Canada.
The treaties and new economic ventures (like private home ownership) Canada is trying to Win Indigenous Nations over with these days, reflects this. And quite frankly so does every single thing coming from Ottawa or any of the Provinces - the exception being the Haudenosaunee Nation.
As discouraging as this seems, I don’t think it is — because it makes the obvious that much more obvious - reality, that much more necessary.
Your words make it abundantly clear, Carver - none of this works both ways - and that’s the way they mean it to be.
Respectfully - Ahni.
It is my understanding that you only have rights if you exercise them. If you do not know your rights, how can you know if you are or have been violated by any level of government: Locally, Provincially, and including Federally. Nine times out of ten, if you don’t know your rights, Don’t expect that those whom feel as your betters will respect them…
I should mention that claiming your rights may have some risk attached….
Just try and get a copy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and let the hot potato games begin!
Respectifully: Carver.