A discussion has just begun on NATCHAT about indigenous peoples in
the international context, including current and historical events
in Mexico and South Africa, so this article is particularly well-
timed, given its relevance to that discussion. --Gary ]
On Mon, 31 Jan 1994, reyburn@peg.pegasus.oz.au (Bruce Reyburn) wrote:
> The recognition of the relationship between First Peoples and
> their living countries is not just a matter of hunting and
> gathering in land set aside by the colonial power as 'National
> Parks'...
I want to thank Mr. Reyburn for correcting the "primitivist fallacy."
But how about the equally false impression that First Peoples can simply
be lumped together as one people when in fact there is tremendous
diversity of norms, practices, beliefs, attitudes, and ways of life, etc?
Labels such as Aboriginals in Australia or Orang Asli in Malaysia or
Native Americans in USA, etc, may be useful for political mobilization
but is also an administrative convenience that can be used falsely to
effect totalizing (oppressive) policies. I wonder what others think about
this and, in particular, indigenous peoples on the NET: how do we rid our
rhetoric and our practices of false stereotypes?
Lye Tuck Po (I would welcome any replies directly to my address too)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comments from NativeNet moderator, Gary Trujillo (gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us):
I suggest that it is certainly wrong and misguided to blur important
distinctions among the many diverse peoples and cultures to whom we
commonly refer as "indigenous," meaning the first to occupy a given
region, but I think it is quite reasonable to look for common elements
in the relationship which indigenous peoples have traditionally had
with the land they occupy and to seek for patterns in the relationships
which these societies have had in relating to the colonizing nations
which have sought to dominate such peoples and to break the relation-
ship with the land of which Bruce writes.