answered question
1
Vote
Vote
6
Answers
Answers
M$10.05
In Latin America How is it possible to reconcile the indigenous movements and projects with the white leaders?
voted interesting: buddawiggi M$0.05
answers (6)
Because of the disparity between the two in terms of power, the leadership should be responsible for making any movement toward reconciliation. The problem is that there's little motivation for doing so. Therefore it seems to me that international pressure needs to come to bear on the situation. Of course, this means that one thing the indigenous movements can do is to try to bring international attention to their grievances.
How might they do this? Although violence is often seen as a good way of getting attention, I don't think this is a very helpful means because it does little to garner sympathy for one's cause. Working through the UN could be helpful. Trying to get the press to report on current sufferings might also work. However and whoever might work for intervention, William Ury's Book "The Third Side" offers some suggestions for how third parties might work towards peace. The book "Jest Peacemaking: Ten Practices for Abolishing War" edited by Glen Stassen, while focused on war, offers useful insights for peacemaking with justice that can be used effectively in Latin America. And there are nongovernmental organizations that are attempting to work on these matters maters.
Although there are many more things that are required to solve these complex issues, I think that to achieve the sought after reconciliation at least two basic things are needed:
Just and sustainable economic development is needed. Any development of the human rights of indigenous peoples requires economic development. But this is not just development projects where someone comes in and builds a well. Although projects like that are necessary and helpful in their own right, sustainable economic development requires that putting the means of material development into local control. Outside development can create dependence rather than real human development. And I think improved education needs to go along with this.
The second thing is the advancement of democracy. Organizations such as International IDEA are working in Latin America to build democracy. Building democratic institutions is one of the best ways of bringing about human rights.
Another thing that has been tried is "Truth and Reconciliation Commissions." Because of the success of this model in South Africa, some have tried it in Latin America. But if there is no real justice then I think little real reconciliation is accomplished. So maybe I should add a third element, in order to achieve real peace and reconciliation true justice must be a part of the equation.
How might they do this? Although violence is often seen as a good way of getting attention, I don't think this is a very helpful means because it does little to garner sympathy for one's cause. Working through the UN could be helpful. Trying to get the press to report on current sufferings might also work. However and whoever might work for intervention, William Ury's Book "The Third Side" offers some suggestions for how third parties might work towards peace. The book "Jest Peacemaking: Ten Practices for Abolishing War" edited by Glen Stassen, while focused on war, offers useful insights for peacemaking with justice that can be used effectively in Latin America. And there are nongovernmental organizations that are attempting to work on these matters maters.
Although there are many more things that are required to solve these complex issues, I think that to achieve the sought after reconciliation at least two basic things are needed:
Just and sustainable economic development is needed. Any development of the human rights of indigenous peoples requires economic development. But this is not just development projects where someone comes in and builds a well. Although projects like that are necessary and helpful in their own right, sustainable economic development requires that putting the means of material development into local control. Outside development can create dependence rather than real human development. And I think improved education needs to go along with this.
The second thing is the advancement of democracy. Organizations such as International IDEA are working in Latin America to build democracy. Building democratic institutions is one of the best ways of bringing about human rights.
Another thing that has been tried is "Truth and Reconciliation Commissions." Because of the success of this model in South Africa, some have tried it in Latin America. But if there is no real justice then I think little real reconciliation is accomplished. So maybe I should add a third element, in order to achieve real peace and reconciliation true justice must be a part of the equation.
Voted as best: kaiote
If you want to change the lives of the indigenous peoples of Latin America and find out what they really think you may have to go to Latin America and meet them in person. That is if you are that interested in this and have the time and money. I am not exactly sure what you are asking. Can you give some examples of these movements and projects?
Whatever these movements and projects are, you can't affect them if the people involved in them don't want anything to be changed. Once again I think you need to know what the people there really think before you can start deciding what can possibly be done to reconcile any sort of movement or project in a society.
Whatever these movements and projects are, you can't affect them if the people involved in them don't want anything to be changed. Once again I think you need to know what the people there really think before you can start deciding what can possibly be done to reconcile any sort of movement or project in a society.
voted helpful: pixelsilva
The answer is a simple compromise,
For anything to be valuable enough for white people to find it worth their time it must involve profit........
this can actually be a really good thing... many endangered people and places have been saved by capitalism, while capitalism has it's flaws it is an extremely good motivator for "the Whites" as you call them.
Let's look at some of the things that have worked in the past to drum up interest (money) in otherwise uninteresting (unprofitable) areas. Eco-tourism for one is changing the way countries think about their natural resources this also includes the indiginous people. When people pay thousands of dollars for an eco-vacation this money helps to show the white oppressors that there is actually value here and that maybe there is a reason to protect these people and places and that maybe there is even a win win situation where profits can be made while preserving cultures and lands. This is how the national park system in the United states began. the railroad companies would give very expensive tours to rich city people, showing the natural beauty of the lands, this was reason enough to preserve the lands, then they got the native americans on board and paid them well to perform dances for the people, they even let rich white people experience living in a real indiginous tee-pee. While this was exploitation, this also ended an era of great disrespect and murder and stealing of lands of the indiginous americans, all it took was to realize that there was some monetary reason to preserve these people and places. All the talking and fighting the indiginous people did only caused more hatred, violence ALWAYS breeds violence. People need to learn about and see first hand the indiginous cultures to really appreciate them. This is how racism is slowly ending and sexism and also homophobia, the more people are exposed to colored people women and gays in the workplace on tv and elsewhere the more it is no big deal the more they start to have friends who are not like them the more they start to defend their friends, indiginous people need to make an effort to befriend the whites while this may sound counter intuitive the oppressed ones are always the ones who need to take action and find the peaceful solution and understand why the whites are doing what they do allthey want is money and power, so why not show them that indiginous culture can be profitable for them.
I understand that this is not the most politically correct answer but through out history this is the only proven way to reconcile differences it is how the rain forests of the amazon are slowly being preserved....pharmacuetical companies are now realizing there is a monetary reason to have the rain forest...possible new drugs can make them a lot of money while at the same time preserving the land and the people within.
For anything to be valuable enough for white people to find it worth their time it must involve profit........
this can actually be a really good thing... many endangered people and places have been saved by capitalism, while capitalism has it's flaws it is an extremely good motivator for "the Whites" as you call them.
Let's look at some of the things that have worked in the past to drum up interest (money) in otherwise uninteresting (unprofitable) areas. Eco-tourism for one is changing the way countries think about their natural resources this also includes the indiginous people. When people pay thousands of dollars for an eco-vacation this money helps to show the white oppressors that there is actually value here and that maybe there is a reason to protect these people and places and that maybe there is even a win win situation where profits can be made while preserving cultures and lands. This is how the national park system in the United states began. the railroad companies would give very expensive tours to rich city people, showing the natural beauty of the lands, this was reason enough to preserve the lands, then they got the native americans on board and paid them well to perform dances for the people, they even let rich white people experience living in a real indiginous tee-pee. While this was exploitation, this also ended an era of great disrespect and murder and stealing of lands of the indiginous americans, all it took was to realize that there was some monetary reason to preserve these people and places. All the talking and fighting the indiginous people did only caused more hatred, violence ALWAYS breeds violence. People need to learn about and see first hand the indiginous cultures to really appreciate them. This is how racism is slowly ending and sexism and also homophobia, the more people are exposed to colored people women and gays in the workplace on tv and elsewhere the more it is no big deal the more they start to have friends who are not like them the more they start to defend their friends, indiginous people need to make an effort to befriend the whites while this may sound counter intuitive the oppressed ones are always the ones who need to take action and find the peaceful solution and understand why the whites are doing what they do allthey want is money and power, so why not show them that indiginous culture can be profitable for them.
I understand that this is not the most politically correct answer but through out history this is the only proven way to reconcile differences it is how the rain forests of the amazon are slowly being preserved....pharmacuetical companies are now realizing there is a monetary reason to have the rain forest...possible new drugs can make them a lot of money while at the same time preserving the land and the people within.
source(s):
looking back on history
looking back on history
Greetings from Venezuela, Latin America. I believe you have a wrong conception about indigenous people and white people in Latin America.
In my country the president is Hugo Chavez, do you believe he is white? Do you think he cares about the indigenous tribes in the country? No, he doesn't, he just use them for his own purposes.
So there you have the answer, in Venezuela like in many countries in Latin America, the indigenous population is not neglected from the political process, to the contrary, they make part of the political life in the country.
Are they being tricked in a lie, back stabbed and forgotten? Oh, yes! But just like all the other guys.
There is not a conspiracy out there to deny the indigenous people, they are us and and we are them, we don't see a border between the "races" in fact there is not us and them, there is only us.
In my country the president is Hugo Chavez, do you believe he is white? Do you think he cares about the indigenous tribes in the country? No, he doesn't, he just use them for his own purposes.
So there you have the answer, in Venezuela like in many countries in Latin America, the indigenous population is not neglected from the political process, to the contrary, they make part of the political life in the country.
Are they being tricked in a lie, back stabbed and forgotten? Oh, yes! But just like all the other guys.
There is not a conspiracy out there to deny the indigenous people, they are us and and we are them, we don't see a border between the "races" in fact there is not us and them, there is only us.
source(s):
I live in Latin America
I live in Latin America
voted helpful: pixelsilva, beast1oh1, defolts
Exactly my friend. Americans (this is Northamericans) are a different breed that live in the Moon. They like to point their finger to all the bad things in SouthAmerica, here the issue being "the poor indians neglegted by the white lords".
Off course, they don´t realize they are talking about themselfs. Northamericans are funny guys, always seeing the wrongs of others, never realizing about their own failure as a white majority population throughout their short and violent history.
"Yeah, poor Southamerican indians".... except for the little fact that at least we got our own indians living in their own ancestral lands, collecting their own food in their own forest, swimming in their own clean rivers growing in vast populations and conforming thousands of different tribes.
...whilst, Northamerican indians are .....well, for the most part... extinct almost a century ago! Their way of life gone, their prairies taken, their food, the Buffalo, almost as extinct as they are today. Relegated to far outpost reserves in the middle of nowhere, where health, social benefits, jobs, equal opportunities are non-existent, not to mention racism and hatred from the white majority population that seem to care more about how latinamericans treat indians in far away lands, than theirs.
Duh!
The sound of ignorance from some people is amusing.
Off course, they don´t realize they are talking about themselfs. Northamericans are funny guys, always seeing the wrongs of others, never realizing about their own failure as a white majority population throughout their short and violent history.
"Yeah, poor Southamerican indians".... except for the little fact that at least we got our own indians living in their own ancestral lands, collecting their own food in their own forest, swimming in their own clean rivers growing in vast populations and conforming thousands of different tribes.
...whilst, Northamerican indians are .....well, for the most part... extinct almost a century ago! Their way of life gone, their prairies taken, their food, the Buffalo, almost as extinct as they are today. Relegated to far outpost reserves in the middle of nowhere, where health, social benefits, jobs, equal opportunities are non-existent, not to mention racism and hatred from the white majority population that seem to care more about how latinamericans treat indians in far away lands, than theirs.
Duh!
The sound of ignorance from some people is amusing.
I think that instead of reconciliation there should be reparation and that will lead to forgiveness and eventually a reconciliation.
The first time I tried to submit this post it generated a server error, and I think it's because it might be too large for the buffer size allocated to answer posts, so this is my second try, wherein I am going to break the answer into two parts. If you see this message, then it will have worked.
Q: In Latin America How is it possible to reconcile the indigenous movements and projects with the white leaders?
A: Your question implies several things that north Americans won't understand in the context of how things are really happening in south America compared to what happened and how it is for natives in north America, so a bit of clarification needs to be made first.
In north American, natives constitute a small part of the population. In the US it's 3%, and in Canada it's 6%, and those populations got small because they were deliberately hunted, starved, and exposed to diseased blankets. Today the survivors live on small reserves, and "indigenous movements" consist of attempts by the survivors to get restitution for those injustices. Also, in north America, very clear lines of distinction are drawn between natives and non-natives.
In south America, depending on the country, natives constitute 40% of the population, and they still live on vast lands way beyond the scope of what north Americans think of as "Indian Reserves".
As much as people dislike how aggressive the Catholic Jesuits were about converting the natives in south America, they at least did not call for full-scale extermination like northern Protestants did in north America. The Catholics wanted to save souls and expand their membership, but the northern Protestants told themselves that the natives were already spawn of Satan, and should be exterminated, and so, I'm sorry, but in the big historical picture of who was less wrong... Catholicism wins. They wanted to convert, not exterminate.
The issue in south America is closer to how it was for the US and its problems between blacks and whites, where blacks constitute a significant percentage of the population, but they were not allowed to work for any of the money, plus the whites were using their majority and wealth to make laws benefiting themselves as a group while pushing the blacks into ghettos and poor towns...
... But it's not exactly the same, because natives in south America have something the blacks in north America never had, which is vast amounts of land, and the conflicts you speak of have to do with what should be done with that land, and to do with the internal band and tribal politics that happen over those resources, and once again, there's a difference between what's seen to happen in north America versus south America.
In north America, if some developers go onto a reserve and say, "Hey, we notice you've got a lot of copper here... how about if we make a deal and you let us mine it?", the natives on that reserve all jump up and go "Yes!", whereupon it turns into a nasty game of band politics, where different families living on the reserve will compete to see who's family will get most of the royalties.
In south America, if developers go onto native lands and say the same thing, *some* natives will jump up and go "Yes!", while *others* will say, "No... we want it to stay the way it is", such that vicious band politics start to happen, not over which clan will get the royalties, but over whether or not it should happen at all.
So, yeah, okay, in south America it's white developers who are instrumental in triggering problems happening on native lands, but the problems themselves have to do with political conflicts within the native people on those lands over what to do about the white-man's proposals.
It would be like... pretend that after the US Civil war land was redivided such that instead of each black male getting 40 acres of land, all blacks moved together and got their own state.
What happened in history was that carpet bagers came from the northern US states and swindled those 40 acre pieces away from the blacks, but if instead the blacks had got their own state, it would have been more like what's happening in south America today, where the carpet bagers would have gone to the black state, and make proposals to extract resources, whereupon the black state probably would have gone into a state of internal conflict over whether or not to allow the white developers to do it...
... And it would get even more complicated, because the side saying that whites should not develop the resource would be split between those who don't want the resource developed at all, because they want the land to stay natural, versus those who want the resource to be developed, just not by whites, so altogether it becomes a three-way internal conflict, with one faction saying to let the whites develop the resource and let the people take the royalties versus factions saying to develop the resource but only if developed by the people versus factions saying to not develop it at all... and three way political disputes like that are *always* vastly more complicated than two sided disputes...
... And that's so different from what happens between natives and whites in north America that the typical north American gets the wrong idea about what's going on when they hear that there are issues between natives and whites in south America, and none of it can be resolved with simple solutions.
For example... one option would be to grant state status to all native lands, such that those lands run as states/province/prefectures within a nation, and then the natives can fight it out to elect governors, and then the whites can hope that the governor elect is pro-outside development, but if the natives elect a governor that's against outside-developers, or if the natives elect a governor that's against any development at all, then what do you want to bet that the whites start sending in secret agents to do bribery and assassinations?
It's just *not* a simple problem, because it's all about pro-developers on one side who want to extract resources and build modern cities and change everyone to live like modern north Americans and/or western Europeans and/or Four Tigers (Japan, Taiwan, S.Korea and Singapore) versus those who like things the way they are and want things to be the same, with white capitalists meddling on one side, and white environmentalists meddling on the other.
(cont. in Reply...)
Q: In Latin America How is it possible to reconcile the indigenous movements and projects with the white leaders?
A: Your question implies several things that north Americans won't understand in the context of how things are really happening in south America compared to what happened and how it is for natives in north America, so a bit of clarification needs to be made first.
In north American, natives constitute a small part of the population. In the US it's 3%, and in Canada it's 6%, and those populations got small because they were deliberately hunted, starved, and exposed to diseased blankets. Today the survivors live on small reserves, and "indigenous movements" consist of attempts by the survivors to get restitution for those injustices. Also, in north America, very clear lines of distinction are drawn between natives and non-natives.
In south America, depending on the country, natives constitute 40% of the population, and they still live on vast lands way beyond the scope of what north Americans think of as "Indian Reserves".
As much as people dislike how aggressive the Catholic Jesuits were about converting the natives in south America, they at least did not call for full-scale extermination like northern Protestants did in north America. The Catholics wanted to save souls and expand their membership, but the northern Protestants told themselves that the natives were already spawn of Satan, and should be exterminated, and so, I'm sorry, but in the big historical picture of who was less wrong... Catholicism wins. They wanted to convert, not exterminate.
The issue in south America is closer to how it was for the US and its problems between blacks and whites, where blacks constitute a significant percentage of the population, but they were not allowed to work for any of the money, plus the whites were using their majority and wealth to make laws benefiting themselves as a group while pushing the blacks into ghettos and poor towns...
... But it's not exactly the same, because natives in south America have something the blacks in north America never had, which is vast amounts of land, and the conflicts you speak of have to do with what should be done with that land, and to do with the internal band and tribal politics that happen over those resources, and once again, there's a difference between what's seen to happen in north America versus south America.
In north America, if some developers go onto a reserve and say, "Hey, we notice you've got a lot of copper here... how about if we make a deal and you let us mine it?", the natives on that reserve all jump up and go "Yes!", whereupon it turns into a nasty game of band politics, where different families living on the reserve will compete to see who's family will get most of the royalties.
In south America, if developers go onto native lands and say the same thing, *some* natives will jump up and go "Yes!", while *others* will say, "No... we want it to stay the way it is", such that vicious band politics start to happen, not over which clan will get the royalties, but over whether or not it should happen at all.
So, yeah, okay, in south America it's white developers who are instrumental in triggering problems happening on native lands, but the problems themselves have to do with political conflicts within the native people on those lands over what to do about the white-man's proposals.
It would be like... pretend that after the US Civil war land was redivided such that instead of each black male getting 40 acres of land, all blacks moved together and got their own state.
What happened in history was that carpet bagers came from the northern US states and swindled those 40 acre pieces away from the blacks, but if instead the blacks had got their own state, it would have been more like what's happening in south America today, where the carpet bagers would have gone to the black state, and make proposals to extract resources, whereupon the black state probably would have gone into a state of internal conflict over whether or not to allow the white developers to do it...
... And it would get even more complicated, because the side saying that whites should not develop the resource would be split between those who don't want the resource developed at all, because they want the land to stay natural, versus those who want the resource to be developed, just not by whites, so altogether it becomes a three-way internal conflict, with one faction saying to let the whites develop the resource and let the people take the royalties versus factions saying to develop the resource but only if developed by the people versus factions saying to not develop it at all... and three way political disputes like that are *always* vastly more complicated than two sided disputes...
... And that's so different from what happens between natives and whites in north America that the typical north American gets the wrong idea about what's going on when they hear that there are issues between natives and whites in south America, and none of it can be resolved with simple solutions.
For example... one option would be to grant state status to all native lands, such that those lands run as states/province/prefectures within a nation, and then the natives can fight it out to elect governors, and then the whites can hope that the governor elect is pro-outside development, but if the natives elect a governor that's against outside-developers, or if the natives elect a governor that's against any development at all, then what do you want to bet that the whites start sending in secret agents to do bribery and assassinations?
It's just *not* a simple problem, because it's all about pro-developers on one side who want to extract resources and build modern cities and change everyone to live like modern north Americans and/or western Europeans and/or Four Tigers (Japan, Taiwan, S.Korea and Singapore) versus those who like things the way they are and want things to be the same, with white capitalists meddling on one side, and white environmentalists meddling on the other.
(cont. in Reply...)
(cont. from Answer)
Do people see how it's not *possible* to have an easy, simple resolution to it all? Given the context of what's really going on, it doesn't really make sense to ask something simple like, "In Latin America How is it possible to reconcile the indigenous movements and projects with the white leaders?"
Although... there is... sort of... something that could be done for one part of it.
If one can focus on *just* the part of the movement involving interactions between whites and natives, then for *that* part of it, if whites could stand back and keep their noses out of it and let the natives decide among themselves which way they want to go...
... Then that's not solving the big problem, which is a conflict between native conservatives who want things to stay the same versus native liberals who want to develop industry and act like northern people (complicated by the native liberals divided between those who think it's okay to take white investment versus the native nationalists who want to develop it themselves)...
... but at least it's simplifying the problem by removing a level of complexity from the debate, and it's something with clear enough lines that it's simple to do, and can be done, if the whites can actually find within themselves enough self-control to stay out of it.
But when was the last time you saw whites do that?
Are people from north America starting to see the dilemma that south Americans are dealing with?
It's just *not* a simple us-versus-them situation, and I'm sorry... other than how if whites would keep out of it, then that would at least simplify that part of the debate... I don't know *anyone* who would be able to simplify it more than that, because it's an internal debate among people of tradition versus modernization, and those debates have *never* been simple, nor had simple solutions.
But I can give you a heads up about something... and that's that Chinese have been proving themselves to be way smarter about making deals with people where they get what they want, which is the resources, and the native conservatives get what they want, which is preservation of their way of life, and the native liberals get what they want, which is money to act modern, so...
... if Americans, north and south, don't want Chinese investors crawling all over south America, then the best recommendation I can suggest is that the whites back off and let the natives work it out for themselves how conservative or modern they want to be, and while the natives do that, the whites should spend the time studying Chinese business negotiation methods to see how it is that Chinese can make deals with natives better than whites can.
Do people see how it's not *possible* to have an easy, simple resolution to it all? Given the context of what's really going on, it doesn't really make sense to ask something simple like, "In Latin America How is it possible to reconcile the indigenous movements and projects with the white leaders?"
Although... there is... sort of... something that could be done for one part of it.
If one can focus on *just* the part of the movement involving interactions between whites and natives, then for *that* part of it, if whites could stand back and keep their noses out of it and let the natives decide among themselves which way they want to go...
... Then that's not solving the big problem, which is a conflict between native conservatives who want things to stay the same versus native liberals who want to develop industry and act like northern people (complicated by the native liberals divided between those who think it's okay to take white investment versus the native nationalists who want to develop it themselves)...
... but at least it's simplifying the problem by removing a level of complexity from the debate, and it's something with clear enough lines that it's simple to do, and can be done, if the whites can actually find within themselves enough self-control to stay out of it.
But when was the last time you saw whites do that?
Are people from north America starting to see the dilemma that south Americans are dealing with?
It's just *not* a simple us-versus-them situation, and I'm sorry... other than how if whites would keep out of it, then that would at least simplify that part of the debate... I don't know *anyone* who would be able to simplify it more than that, because it's an internal debate among people of tradition versus modernization, and those debates have *never* been simple, nor had simple solutions.
But I can give you a heads up about something... and that's that Chinese have been proving themselves to be way smarter about making deals with people where they get what they want, which is the resources, and the native conservatives get what they want, which is preservation of their way of life, and the native liberals get what they want, which is money to act modern, so...
... if Americans, north and south, don't want Chinese investors crawling all over south America, then the best recommendation I can suggest is that the whites back off and let the natives work it out for themselves how conservative or modern they want to be, and while the natives do that, the whites should spend the time studying Chinese business negotiation methods to see how it is that Chinese can make deals with natives better than whites can.
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
