Forum Home > REGIONAL HISTORY > Multiple Region > Modern Multi-Region
Aboriginal peoples in your country
Post Reply Page 123 19>
drgonzaga
Quote drgonzaga
Quote Reply Topic: Aboriginal peoples in your country
However, the use of Holland is not anachronistic, since it was this "province" of the Low Countries that had the most contacts and conflict with the Frieselanders!
Honi soit qui mal y pense
lirelou wrote:
Thorvald, I take it you mean 'The Netherlands" instead of 'Holland', which is but a province. There are also Frisians resident in Germany, and Frisian ancestors are also included in the genetic make-up of modern English. An old comrade named Heinrich Otten claimed that Frisian is the closest language to modern English.
Yes, I used Holland to take the confusion away, and most foreigners use Holland anyway; just to make things easier
Here's a summary of the Frisian view of History...a bit suspect but interesting none-the-less but one has to take the intepretaive flow with a grain of salt, since its demands purity of blood for 2000 years.
http://www.i-friesland.com/history.html
Call it the empire of the herring traders...
Edited by drgonzaga - 21 Jan 2010 at 05:31
lirelou
Quote lirelou
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
In Holland, the Frisians are the eldest people living on the Dutch territory who have their own language and culture preserved. They existed more then 2000 years ago already, when the Roman Empire still existed, and Germans, Dutch and English people didnot even exist at the time.
Quote Carcharodon
In the thread Fake North American Indians Jams posted this nice link:
http://home.earthlink.net/~arran2/archive/yoikers_powwow.htm
It shows some of the increasing cultural exchange and cooperation between different aboriginal peoples. In this case between Samis and Native Americans.
Quote pinguin
Quote Reply Posted: 18 Nov 2009 at 10:01
Don't be silly, please.
Is that like AC/DC? Give it a break you two...as we all know the aborigenes are on the brink of a population explosion that will seriously affect the nature of birth control discussions before the United Nations. It will be only then that we realize the implications of a "carbon sink"!
Edited by drgonzaga - 13 Nov 2009 at 01:39
Many other species are common for both chile and neighbouring countries. Different species have different patterns of movement. some are more stationary while others are migrating.
Birds move freely? No way. The argentinean parrot never reached here, nor theirs poissonous snakes.
pinguin wrote:
That's ideology. Maybe yours frontiers with Finland and Russia are just artificial conventions. It is not the case in my country, where the frontiers are actually physical divisions (6.000 meter tall chain of mountains, the driest desert in the world, etc.)
Still the winds pass by those barriers, water runs from country to country and birds moving freely over those borders.
Carcharodon wrote:
..The EARTH is one big environment. Borders are just artificial creations.
Wind, climate, water and many organisms knows no borders.
This is not "the environment".. It is OUR country, and we want to preserve what is in it.
We don't need ONGs to learn that.
The EARTH is one big environment. Borders are just artificial creations.
Actually, most our refugees went to Argentina and other parts of Latin America. On the other hand, the fact rich nations received refugees, allowed Pinochet to go ahead with its politics of deporting people.
If we had been more isolated communism and fascism wouldn't have reached here!
If Chile had been more isolated democracy, capitalism, liberalism or other political or economical influences maybe not would have reached there either.
And? I will put the example of Chile, no matter other countries of the region follow the same pattern.
Do you know since when we use cathalitic converters in Chile? Do you know that in the 70s we didn't purity sewer waters at all, but now most of it is purified before throwing to the ocean? Do you know about our concern to save the whales and to prevent French nuclear waste to navigate in our oceans?
As I say before. We don't need preaching in things we already know.
Well, that is good. But if you did harm to the environment, others would have had the right to protest just as you have the right to protest if others harm the environment.
Well, I was talking about other areas with rainforest. But of course other countries and the UN have the right to have opinions about your country and all other countries. As I mentioned, we live in a more and more interconnected world. What would have happend if we all had thought it was just the matter of Chile and Chileans when Pinochet took over the power? What if we had sent back all refugees with the explanation that we do not like to interfer in the affairs of Chileans?
And about ecology: atmosphere, climate, many living organisms and water knows no borders. If you pollute, or in other way destroy, air or water or kill of migrating organisms than it is of course a matter for many more than yourself. The world is interconnected, the atmosphere is interconnected, the cycles of water are interconnected, living organisms are a part of a larger whole. So because of that ecological matters are also a matter for everyone and much more important than you seem to understand.
Man. I was talking about the rainforest of MY country, where Mapuche live, and that are the same kind you could find in Canada, Germany or Russia. I wasn't talking about the jungles of Brazil.
The problems here is not the environment (who cares?)... It is the property of the land. That's an issue between Mapuches and the Chilean state, and foreigners are not allowed to interfiere in internal affairs of my country. OK?
If you really want to understand these topics without making the clown, forget about the damn ecological ideology.
People don't need ecologists to preach the paradyse. They certainly know wild capitalism destroy the environment, and both Indians and non-Indians agree what to do with the damn capitalists.
The rainforest is big, and, if you have a good knowledge about it, it is a rather suitable place to live in. It is first with the invasion of loggers, miners, oil companies and other so called developers, destroying the environment and the chanses for subsistence that it becomes more or less inhabitable.
There are actually people who prefer to live in the jungle instead of risking becoming poor proletarians or end up in some terrible slum.
And schools, technique, medical care and other modern things can actually be compatible with living in the rainforest.
Today, in my country at least, natives live like everybody else: in standard houses,with cars and trucks and dressing in jeans. The culture is kept alive but the times of survivals in the rainforest are gone.
The vikings are a matter of the past. Natives in the jungles are the past, too.
Edited by Carcharodon - 11 Nov 2009 at 22:20
gcle2003 wrote:
If ecology is 'everybody's business' then how can you simultaneously hold that 'aboriginal' peoples should be allowed to carry on in their own ways? How can you claim that you should interfere with what people do and at the same time preach that you shouldn't?
The way out of that might be to assert that aboriginal peoples have some special claim to privileged treatment - but at the same time you go one about everyone have ing the same rights.
If you could avoid simply repeating noble-sounding slogans and think about the rational implications it might help.
Actually, most Latin American states are worried about the development of indigenous communities. They are worried about the preservation of the languages and customs, but that doesn't mean to keep natives living a primitive lifestyle forever. Natives are vaccinated, they receive education, financing to develop theirs lands and tourism, and also financing to preserve theirs traditions and commercialize theirs traditional products.
Sorry. But the Americas was never a paradyse and the first thing natives want to do, when they met European civilization was to move on to it.
One can't just generalise about human rights organisations because they vary immensely. For instance my wife and I suppport Médecins sans Frontières largely because they get out there and do a useful job without bothering with any metaphysical claptrap about races and ancestry and so on - or for that matter with any preaching about 'rights'. The same is largely true of the Red Cross and Oxfam.
Surviaval, Amnesty and many other do not bother with metaphysical claptraps either. And they are also out there doing useful things.
You see, that is just a tangle of buzzwords that when you follow it through (as far as one can) contradicts your other positions.
One can interfere in different ways. To invade people, steal their land, destroy their culture and displace them is very different from working through UN and different environmental and human rights organisations to protect these same peoples or to protect sensitive environments.
gcle2003
PM Honorary Member
Quote gcle2003
In todays interconnected world human rights issues and also issues concerning ecology, climate and similar is everybodies business.
Edited by gcle2003 - 11 Nov 2009 at 21:43
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
drgonzaga wrote:
Eco imperialism, that sounds like some strange hybrid. Ecology I am interested in, but Imperialism is not a fancy of mine.
Well, Carch, the minute you begin to dictate how any nation should conduct its internal policies on development and the general welfare, you become one, an eco-imperialist that is...even if it means that an entire group of people should be condemned to marginalization so as to permit Swedes to produce more Volvos--or misproduce them as is obvious.
Well, to defend human rights is not imperialism. One cannot let solidarity remain in ones own countrys borders. In todays interconnected world human rights issues and also issues concerning ecology, climate and similar is everybodies business.
Or you maybe think Amnesty, Survival, IWGIA and other international human rigths organisations are also imperialists?
By the way, soon the Swedish connection with Volvo will perhaps be just a memory.
Grumpy? I think you have us confused with characters from your favored literary pursuit in fairy tale land. You've been pretty good at playing Snow White, I might add. I believe that what both of us have called for is the cessation of your patronizing attitudes that are nothing more than simple exploitation for the purpose of a "greater" cause: eco-imperialism.
Under that bit of bureaucratic double-speak, the Mafia qualifies as an indigenous community determined to preserve its way of life against the pressures of the dominant sectors! I wonder why none of these kooks protest the treatment of Egypt's Copts by the government and its dominant sectors?
I gather that the prequisite for the advantageous treatment given to 'aboriginal' populations is that they demand it?
What about any Southerners around who claim that they are suffering from being invaded, colonised and dominated by the North (listen to the Yankee accents in Atlanta), and on the basis of their historical continuity with the pre-war South demand the right to have their plantations restored and keep slaves to work on them?
You two are always so grumpy
You continually repeat that they should be given advantageous treatment because they are 'aborigines' (though you don't seem very clear about who's an 'aborigine' and who isn't).
Well, even the UN has no exact definition but some of these points will cover some of the question:
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 in 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 basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system.
(From: The Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations by Martinez Cobo, then the Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission for the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities)
But, the definitions of indigenous peoples seem to vary somewhat and also what is an indigenous and non indigenous popluation are often contested in some areas (as in some places in Sweden where Swedes and Samis lived close to each other for a very long time). So some cases can be said to be more clear cut than other.
Amerindindian groups (especially those who live in a fairly traditional way and who sees themselves as separate from the mainstream societies in their countries) are an example of peoples who use to be called (and call themselves) aboriginal or indigenous, Australian Aborigines another case, Polynesians on Tahiti or Easter Island is another example,and Maoris on New Zealand.
Also several groups in Asia, Africa and Europe can be included in the definition(s).