Native Peoples & Capitalism?

Is there a way that Native Americans can benefit from free trade/free markets without it harming their culture? Or do you feel it isn't the threat that some think.


Fears over the effect of free trade

By Mike Fox in Montreal

Native American people from across North and South America have said they fear that a free trade agreement covering both continents could have devastating effects on native peoples.
The statement was issued at the end of the first ever meeting of the indigenous peoples' summit of the Americas held in the Canadian capital, Ottawa.
It was organised in order to make recommendations to the Summit of the Americas, which takes place in Quebec City later in April to discuss the creation of a free trade area of the Americas.

For years indigenous people were overlooked

The issue of the rights of indigenous peoples across North and South America has received more and more attention in recent years.
And victories in a series of major land-rights claims in Canada and elsewhere have given renewed impetus to their drive for more recognition.
Summit invitation
So the delegates in Ottawa were delighted to hear that the chief of the Assembly of First Nations in Canada, Matthew Coon Come, had been invited to attend the Summit of the Americas, although as yet he has not been given time to address the heads of state.
The invitation came in an open letter from the Canadian Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, who vowed to make sure that the views of native peoples would have an influence on the outcomes of agreements made at the Quebec City summit.
The closing statement from the indigenous peoples' summit stresses that any future trade agreements must recognise the fundamental human rights of aboriginal peoples, their claims to the land, and the right to self-governance.
It has also called for indigenous people to be allowed to take part in the negotiations leading to a free trade agreement of the Americas.
Common position
Matthew Coon Come said that the indigenous peoples' summit showed that first nations can develop a common position to help them protect their languages, cultures and political identities.
And he reminded the countries of the Organisation of American States that their lands and the resources that they extract from them were once all native lands, and that the native peoples would no longer accept being excluded from the riches produced on their territories.
With first nations across the Americas becoming increasingly confrontational when their individual territories are threatened, it seems they're now preparing to speak with a single voice in international negotiations as well.

 

If they price their culture they won't loose it, as Europeans and Japanese didn't

 

Can you explain that some?



It seems to me that indigenous farmers don't necessarily seem to be anti-free trade itself. It's more that they don't like how trade policies have been negotiated. They say that their input hasn't been included enough in trade negotiations like NAFTA for example, which included things that they say was going to hurt them business wise(subsidies). So their position from what I gathered seems to be that they aren't anti-free trade/globalization just as long as they get a say and have some influence on how the trade policies are made and implemented.

 

I think if you want to get the right answer here you need to ask the right question.

Your question, and this article, implies that free trade is the greatest threat to face first nations cultural heritage when in reality the greatest threat to first nations culrual heritage has come and is slowly fading. They have survived genocide, massive forced migrations, unjust theft of land, residential schools, laws which made illegal their very cultural identity, state gaurdianship, the list is endless. Cultural Heritage is an organic substance, it is ment to shift and evolve with the times, it can never be truely taken from the people as we have learned and witnessed. These are not weak minded children who need to be saved, these are proud people who are going through a difficult time of healing and rediscovery as they try to recliam the honour of their ancestors. The goal here isn't intigration into our society nor is it a return to the days of hunting and gathering societies. The goal is self determination for thier communities and traditional territories (and the natural resources found within). The goal here is reserves where people can actually have jobs, work with and govern thier land and not be forced to move away from thier families and communities in order to live fufilling lives. Certainly free trade is another dynamic and challenge not to be underestimated, but the resolve I have witnessed in living and working with first nations and the sweeping changes which have come to pass in the last 25 years, leads me to believe this is a fight we are gaining ground on. To understand this situation it must be put into context: nothing can be worse then what these peoples faced at the turn of the last century.

 

It's that I've gotten into discussions on other forums with people who feel that free trade/globalization is a big threat to indigenous people's land and culture. I don't exactly agree with that. I've come to see that it's more bad trade policies that's the problem and not free trade itself. The thing is that Native farmers don't seem to be anti-free trade, it's that they are often left out of trade negotiations so they aren't able to influence how trade policies are made. I think the samething is happening with the CAFTA trade policy . This CAFTA is causing riots in Guatemala because it's viewed as another bad trade policy like NAFTA.

 

Motion, I totaly agree with yovo. Actualy those people you mention would like to preserve native exotic cultures unchanged, like a sort of anthropological reservations, just because they are fascinated by them. In reality, it's a very selfish point of view and unfair to the natives themselves.

 

I found this interesting.



" Clear Vocabulary



What most people fail to appreciate the profound difference between what a true liberal means when she says free trade and how the term “free trade” has been adulterated by globalization’s enemies.

The former simply means the free movement of people, capital, and goods and services across national boundaries. That is all. It comes nowhere close to the kind of crony capitalism, corporate welfare, and corrupt government policies that the anti-globalization movement calls free trade.

Because the anti-globalization movement has been allowed to set the terms of the global trade debate, much confusion and antipathy have been the result. A term that is supposed to signify cooperation and exchange between consenting adults has become synonymous with corporations jumping into bed with government officials who have the power to grant favors. But nothing could be further from free trade.

Ideological Synthesis

Another thing that people, like Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, have been shouting from the rooftops is that, in the absence of private property, there is no chance people will rise out of poverty. Why? The answer is pretty simple. People who have no claim to their land, homes or businesses are sitting on dead capital. Only property that is titled and transferable has any real value. This is the way complex economies are set in motion and how wealth is generated.

Thus, the Zapatistas’ insistence on communal property is probably misplaced—but only to a degree. In another sense, they have not been able to protect their communal lands over the years because it is essentially un-owned. Of course, in the eyes of the Mexican government, unowned land is the Mexican government’s land. That means all the rich resources in Chiapas can be sold to the highest bidder (or favored interest group). But wait a minute? Shouldn’t the Zapatistas – or at least the wider segment of peoples in Chiapas – have some claim, nay private claim, over that property? A true liberal would say they do. And a true liberal theory would allow the peoples of Chiapas freely to engage in whatever cooperative arrangements they see fit. In fact, if both parties were willing to accept the notion of private property as basic, the rest of this conflict would dissolve fairly quickly. The Zapatistas – with enforced individual titles over property (say in the form of squatter’s rights) – could easily form communal cooperatives to preserve their traditional agrarian communities."

http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/815.html

 

Capitalism hasn't treated them very well so far.

 

Can you give some examples?

 

Like in the old west, where the capitalist trading posts had jars that settlers could drop a Native scalp in, and get a store credit. That capitalist mercantile incentive plan was not so good for them.

 

BlackGuardXIII,


Does the fact that some capitalist were bad people mean that capitalism itself is a bad thing? I mean, if a racist person was driving a Cheverolate car, does that make Cheverolate a racist company? I don't see free market capitalism itself as being bad just because there are,and have been corrupt people who've use capitalism to create wealth.

As for free trade,didn't Native civilizations like the Mayans develop and prosper because of them participating in trade? So wouldn't participating in trade today(without U.S subsidies,and Native input into trade policies) contribute to the prosperity of Indigenous people today?

 

I never said capitalism itself was bad, just that Natives have been on the short end of the stick so far. If we maybe gave half the continent back to them, and then set up free trade, I think capitalism could be good for them.

 

Right and hunters wiping out the Buffalo population due to market incentives didn't help Natives either.

 

Are you kidding?!?

Of course you don't mean the Native Indigenous culture that we witnessed in 1492 when market forces first arived.

Those People lived in a Communal State of Nature.
Columbus called it Paradise, and its People innocent as children.

That culture can no longer be harmed by the Markets.
That Native Indigenious culture was bought-out long-ago by a hostile take-over.
It was quite a run till we almost bought them into extinction.

You probably mean the amazon remnants who still get bad cell-phone connections, or the bingo reservation culture.

Don't worry,,,
Walmart and strip-malls couldn't hurt that culture.

Comforting thought for those living off this organic shift.
Their culture simply evolved!
It's still there, just different!

And what are minor differences among learned witnesses?

I'm with all those people who want to preserve unchanged these paradises of empty liquer bottles and '51 Chevy hubcaps.

Where else can an anthropologist study the effects of genecide,
dispossession and alcoholism on cultural evolution.

Your right, that's selfish of me.

Who am I to stand between the primitive Natives and their cultural enlightenment through private property and markets.

We'll turn them to the true faith yet!

 

m6m, are you so uneducated? Just read a little about those cultures! Columbus said what he said not knowing yet those cultures.

The Mayan and the Aztecs were great traders. Even more the Mayans navigated with merchant ships covering the whole Carribean (even Columbus met such a ship in 1501). The first Incan subjects met by Pizarro in 1527 were those from a chimu merchant ship. The Anassassi and the Mississippians were also traders.

Also you cann't talk about Communal State of Nature to urbanised highly developped cultures, who were brought down by your own ancestors.

Good at least you admit you're selfish. Because you refuse them the right to choose. Look, the Japanese chosen to adopt capitalism during the Meiji Era and they didn't loose their culture. The Sentineles, from the Sentinel Island from the Andaman Archipelago, have chosen to refuse any contact with modern civilisation, and if you ask me it's OK. But this must be their choice, not some anthropologist's and most certainly not yours!

 

I'm glad the sarcasm of my satire hit a nerve.

And I'm sure you would agree that WE haven't earned the right to even suggest how our victims should survive.

Especially when our suggestion is the rationalization of our crime!
That's simply sadistic.

Exactly what we would expect from the Euro-centric Civilized Mind.

Are you suggesting that the Communal Life was NOT the predominate life of the Humans here before We came?

Are you suggesting that sharing openly and freely with little or no private property was Not the predominate way of life of the Humans here before WE came?

And are you suggesting that living in a state of spiritual-oneness with nature was NOT the predominate spirit-path of the Humans here before WE came?

Because that is essentially what Columbus said, and that is essentially what WE alien invaders found to be predominate in this New World.

I agree!
The Aztecs, the Incas, the Mayans, are perfect examples of how a State of Fear creates mass murder, fratracide, freedom fearing hierarchies, impulses to control, organize and own.

In other words, a State of Civilization in all its urbanized and highly developed glory.

I hear the highly developed cultures of Eastern Europe tried to simulate a Comunal State,,, and FAILED!!
I wonder why?!? LOL!!!

 

m6m, I have to continue to be sarcastic toward you. The Euro-centric Civilised Mind it's yours. 100 years ago people like you were postulating non-Europeans are savage and they need to be civilised and educated by the superior Europeans, an excellent excuse for colonialism. Now, you and others like you, their descendants, wish to preserve native cultures as they are now, without asking the natives themselves, just because they find those cultures exotic and interesting, but for their own selfish plesure. You are no better then a colonialist from the "good old days".

I say the choice should be their, not ours. We are not some kind of divine aliens who have the right to diecide for others. Let them establish their own future, to embrase modern civilisation as the Japanese or the Chinese did, or to refuse it as the natives of Sentinel Island are doing right now. Also, let them decide if they wish to be studied by our anthropologists and visited by our turists, don't be a condescendent son of a bitch who "allows" them to be what they are. If you would try to transport your majestic person on Sentinel, the locals would kill you. And I say they have all the right to do it, it's their island, what right do you have to "study" them?

About the precolombian cultures, well, I informed myself and that's exactly what I'm sugesting. With a few exceptions, like the Inuits, the tribes from the Amazon and Tierra del Fuego, the native cultures of America were far more developed in the 15th century then many generations of whites were ready to accept. The "noble savage" it's just a Eurocentric myth. Look at the great city of Cahokia, which is now Saint Louis, to the Iroqouis higly developed style of government, to the Cherokee history, to the Anassassi and their descendants the Hopi and the Zuni, to the Californian Shumash who already had a premonetery system of trading (shells instead of money) when the Spanish arrived, to all the cultures of gold from Central America and Columbia, to the Araucans from Chile. Instead of, as a Romanian proverb says, "dreaming green horses on the walls", inform yourself and then speak.

Well, if you realy wish to discuss communism and its failure, we can do it, but it's not the topic here. Anyway, I sense to you not only a Eurocentrism (which aplys not only to Europeans, but also to all those of European descend), but also a Western-centrism. Actualy, if you would inform yourself, you would find out Eastern European cultures are highly developed and there is no place of sarcasm here.

 

m6m,


What's your opinion of this? It's about adapting Indigenous culture to the modern day and business world.





We have shown that we can produce successful high officials. Now we need successful indigenous businessmen, distinguished and capable indigenous intellectuals, and indigenous professionals of the highest quality who have studied in national and international universities—both men and women.

We need all of this because in the non-indigenous world, when one speaks of indigenous peoples, the image is still that of a person who is uneducated, dirty, isolated, invisible. People still say to me, “you are a university professor, you have been vice president, so you are not indigenous.” It is part of the stereotype an asymmetrical society has been instilling in indigenous and non-indigenous people alike.

IDBAmerica: You speak of using elements of the indigenous culture to create a modern society. What are some examples?

Cárdenas: Let’s look first at the practical level, and then the theoretical level.

One is the concept of authority as a privilege, as a social service. In indigenous communities, a leader is a member of the group and subordinate to it. He cannot accumulate riches; on the contrary, he makes outlays from his own pockets to carry out his duties. This concept of authority would be a good model for the the political world of today. Also, an indigenous leader must constantly consult with his constituents. He can never make a decision that is not shared by the popular will.

In the area of economics, accumulation is not the primary objective in the indigenous world. It is fine to be rich, but wealth must be shared, and methods of redistribution are very important. The tradition of redistribution can be seen in the festivals, in rites and ceremonies. There are also indigenous businessmen who share with their communities, not just enrich themselves.

Another element is the indigenous concept of property held in common. I am not an enemy of private property, nor an admirer of community property. But both of these practices must be combined, because to be human is to be both an individual and part of a community. We have to strike a balance between the individual and the collective.

http://www.iadb.org/idbamerica/index.cfm?thisid=1485

 

What I read in the article appears to me to correspond to be the direction most tribal councils would like to go.

But I lived on the reservation for over a year on a White owned ranch.

That's the thing, everything in that article could only happen in a very piece-miel fashion, because most reservations are mostly owned and controled by non-tribal people.

With that kind of handi-cap, success will be difficult.

 

Originally Posted by Yovo

Cultural Heritage is an organic substance, it is ment to shift and evolve with the times, it can never be truely taken from the people as we have learned and witnessed.


B.S. ( bovine scat )

It can be taken from the people, and has been throughout recorded history, over and over again. I am shocked that anyone would think no cultural heritages have ever been destroyed or taken away. North america has witnessed this ad nauseaum over the last century.
As for cultural heritage being meant to evolve, I feel that it can reach a state of balance and not need to evolve further. It is said that the Australian aboriginal culture remained virtually the same for 40 000 years, the longest unbroken culture known of.
I also want to say that m6m and Sandu both have brought up good points supporting the original peoples of Turtle Island, imho.
Re: the buffalo, it was not just market incentives. The passengers on trains used to compete to see who could kill the most buffalo while they travelled on the train............ how civilized!