Brazzil

First: This is a Brasilian internal affair, meaning, your foreign opinion is completely irrelevant in this case. It does not count!

Second: I agree with Indigenous land, however, not at the borders, it threatens Brasilian territorial sovereignty.

Third: You are purposely over simplifying this topic and making biased leaps of unsubstantiated conclusions.

Four: It rests with the Brasilian military to secure our national integrity, be it at the borders or anywhere within our country.

Five: Rather than worry about Brasilians problems, why don’t you try to improve your own country, like the american rogue foreign policy.

Six: Its worrisome to many Brasilians when we see some indigenous cultures of the Amazonas fluent English but can’t speak a word in Portuguese, and educated in the US in many instances. That makes me go Hummmmm!!!

The only predatory model that I know of is called the United States of America.

Good day,

Costinha

There's no way such a small number of Indians would need such a large contiguous space. The demarcation is of the size of a state! The intervention of NGOs and the UN only highlights that this is not about indians, but about slicing the Brazilian terroritory into different "nations".

The UN indigenous peoples rights declaration states clearly that they have the right to: independent government, language, schools, economy, etc. This is the equivalent of an independence and the the greatest threat to the Brazilian sovereignty since the Independence!

Ironically the same declaration wasn't signed by the US or Canada and other countries with indigenous peoples. I wonder why. Haha.

your "There's no way such a small number of Indians would need such a large contiguous space" is somewhat right !

- What about your small numbers farmers with 10'000 hectares and even much more ? Especially compared to your 5 millions family farmers.
- Why provide 80 % of agricultural governmentg subsidizes to the minority very large farmers and only 20 % to the 5 millions family farmers ?
- You should as well turn your own sentencing to " why allow such huge wealth in the hands of the minority elite and nearly nothing to the majority of the population" Just a memory refreshing : Brazil has one of the World Worst Social and Wealth Inequality...if you forgot it !
- You may just as well refer to the preceding article on the same Amazon subject : " Brazil's Plans for the Amazon Are Not as Green as Lula Paints Them !" The 2 articles are not unrelated if you think twice. Cheating, lying and hiding are the bases of Bin Crook reign !
Every time grains prices are low he increases the size of the protected areas, and allow more illegal deforestation when grains prices increases. By more illegal I mean, with the blessing of your various Supreme Courts of Injustice, ready to overturn previous judgements....when the time is right !

Your comment not only has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but it is also false.

Those indians must shut up and live like the rest.

Indian reservations made sense until 100 years ago.

Today we are in the 21st century and the Brazilian government should end any indian reservations inside Brazilian territory.

And the remaining native indians should be assimilated into the Brazilian population.

For all practical purposes any native indian who born inside Brazilian territory is a Brazilian citizen.

They still can continue claiming their heritage in the same way Brazilians are proud of their European ancestry - some are decedents of Italians, Germans, Portuguese, Spanish, and now native Brazilian tribes.

I don't know why the Brazilian Supreme Court is even considering the current case.

All these indians that are part of this cout case are Brazilian citizens.

End of the story.

.

They want to be referred as a nation, and they don't want to even allow the Brazilian military to go inside their lands.

Despite what the Supreme Court says today the Brazilian military should end this non-sense.

There is no indian nation inside Brazil today, and all these native Brazilian indians are Brazilian citizens with the same rights as everybody else.

If Brazilians knew their own history then they would know that Jose Bonifacio de Andrada e Silva had already suggested the assimilation of the native Brazilian indians into the Brazilian population almost 200 years ago.

And it is time to end this non-sense that this people who born inside Brazilian territory are anything else other than Brazilian citizens.

.

Ricardo, under international law going back to before the 1500s, the native peoples of a given area are considered to have an existence and social identity that is prior to and supercedes any conquest by another power. This is the doctrine of native sovereignty and under it, simple conquest by Brazil gives Brazil no right to decree that native peoples needs must be eliminated.

The doctrine you preach - that the Nation State has the right to eliminate ethnic groups within its territory, forcibly assimilating them into some imagined homogenous national whole - is rightly called "ethnocide" (some philospophers in fact call it "genocide") and it is absolutely prohibited by the UN Charter which, last I looked, Brazil was a founding signatory of.

Now, perhaps you're one of those people who claims that "might makes right", that 250,000 Indians have no right to any land or independent socio-cultural existence when faced with a nation of 180 million people who can kick their collective ass from here to China. If this is indeed the basis of your philosophy, then please act like a corageous human being and simply come out and say that you are, essentially, a fascist, believing as you do in the fascist doctrine that the Nation State is the neé plus ultra of human existence.

However, if that is indeed your view of things - might makes right and the Devil take the hindmost - then you are in no position to piss and moan about the "internationalization" of the Amazon. After, socio-economically speaking, in comparison to the U.S. and Western Europe, Brazil is nothing more than a rather advanced Indian tribe. Those peoples have just as much a "right" to kick Brazil off what are supposedly its lands in the name of the common good of the planet as Brazil has to stomp on Indians in the name of the common good of the nation.

So if it's OK to give the big banana to the Indians and kick them off their lands, forcing them to act in a way which you, in your infinite wisdom, deem "Brazilian", then please let us hear no more whining from your lips about how the U.S. and Europe want to piss all over Brazil's sovereign rights.

Rationally speaking, either a people's soveriegn rights exist or they do not and might makes right. You can't have it both ways, kiddo. You can't ignore Indians' sovereign rights and then insist that other nations respect Brazil's.

Today the ethnic breakdown of the population in Angola is:

Ethnic groups: Ovimbundu 37%, Kimbundu 25%, Bakongo 13%, mestico (mixed European and native African) 2%, European 1%, other 22% (Brazilians, Chineses, and Indians)

But in the 1700’s and 1800’s the Angola population breakdown was closer to the following: Ovimbundu 49%, Kimbundu 33%, Bakongo 17%, other 2 %.

Regarding the population of the Congo the majority was of the ethnic group called Bantu.

Since Angola and Congo are next door to each other, we can say that at least 96.0 percent of all African Slaves brought into Brazil came from the same area in Africa and that the black Brazilian population knows the source of their roots. We also can say that the majority of the black population in Brazil are descendants from Angolans (67 percent) or from Congoleses (29 percent).

The black population in Brazil also can start claiming their original heritage based on their tribal ancestors who used to live in Africa. Then after a DNA test in Brazil the black Brazilian population would be divided into four major groups – most of the blacks living in the North of Brazil we know that they are descendants of the Bantu ethnic group then the black living in other parts of Brazil would be classified as Ovimbundu, Kimbundu, and Bakongo ethnic groups. Then they also could claim the status of nation for each group and take a piece of Brazil as their new homeland.

If the Brazilian government starts allowing the native Indians the status of a nation based on their heritage then you open the door to all kinds of crazy things and we don’t have anymore a nation called Brazil.

In the same way the Africans have been assimilated into the Brazilian society, the native Brazilian Indians should do the same.

The black Brazilians still keep a lot of their African culture in places such as Bahia, and in other parts of Brazil. Their African culture and customs did not died because they were assimilated into the Brazilian population.

As far as I know we don’t have reservations in Brazil to keep the descendants of African slaves separated from the rest of the Brazilian population.

.

Assimilation theory - the idea that one nation needs must have one single, homogenous culture and that all smaller groups within the nation need to adhere to that culture - has been proven to be so much horse puckey.

Brazil is a nation of CULTURES, plural. What your spouting here is simply a reworked, reheated version of old fascist concepts that were roundly proven incorrect in the 1940s.

The problem with Indians, in any case, has nothing to do with their CULTURE. By international law, dating back to the 15th century, Indian peoples are considered to be coherent socio-political units which have a prior and over-riding claim on the lands which the occupy, predating that of any conquistador or settler nation state. The claims of today's Indian groups to land and (at least semi-) independence has nothing to do, legally, with their "heritage" and everything to do with the international definition of sovereignty which Brazil is bound to uphold by UN charter.

Indians could all be living in condos, driving 4x4s, wearing raybans, eating feijoada and chanting in unison in support of the national football team and NONE of that would change the fact that they have a legal right to land and a socio-economic existence that is distinct from that of the surrounding nation state.

So much for assimilation.

The best a nation state can legally do is what the U.S.: declare the Indians as "doemstic dependent nations" and assert national authority over them in this fashion. Even this, however, has not prevented Indians in the U.S. from engaging in 200 years of political struggle for an independent existance.

This is why all this talk of yours regarding assimilation is so much pissing in the wind, backed up by an abysmal ignorance regarding Indian affairs in the Americas: the "Indian problem", such as it is, is not a cultural problem which can be resolved by assimilation - it is a POLITICAL problem.

Was it your ass that I kicked last time when this discussion came up?

Your argument fails because a nation state is a modern concept and Indian tribes are from the stone age. They are hunters and getherers. They are snapshot of what humanity was thousands of years ago.

Nobody is trying to erase their customs, they may live however want today. There's no need for demarcations or special laws for that. The fact is that anybody born in Brazil is Brazilian, and they must be treated just like any other citizen.

Your analogy of the relationship between Brazil-Europe and Indians-Brazil was also debunked last time. The comparison is a lame attempt to claim a high ground when in fact those countries aren't much different from Brazil at all. If someone doesn't know about Brazil then it is about ignorance, if we believe that Indians live in the stone age then it is a fact. Not all of Indians of course, only those not assimilated yet.

If you actually got the real core of what makes the western civilization great, i.e., the values, you would be in the right direction. But your attempt is just something that any redneck could come up with. Scientist? In these days universities have become so accessible that any idiot can become one.

And for your information many Indians are against the demarcation. Oh ho! That's something you wouldn't expect, isn't it?

There's no way a less developed culture can survive the contact with a more developed one (Note: more developed is not the same thing as the greatest number of fast food stores or drug addicts) Their absorption is just a matter of time, because they can't cut the piece of land they believe to be theirs and move it to another planet.

So, yes, the only plausible conclusion is that they will have to deal with the outside world. Which leads to another conclusion that they are not real indians, but instead they are just looking for the "highest bidder", and then our concerns would be true.

By the way, what about those tribes in the USA and Canada? When will they found independent nations? Ah, the hipocrisy!

Thaddeus, go back to the hole you crawled from. I have kicked your ass many times, and I will continue to do so, you hack of a scientist, as long as my country is in danger.

Another thing, indians themselves don't organize into formal nations. They organize into tribes. So the current option offered by the military, of having islands of land for each tribe, actually is the best.

Why would they need 12% of the Brazilian territory? Such a small number of indians? This is not about indian rights, this about economic interest by the part of certain international groups.

Assimilation is about considering everyone else as an equal, without prefixes like it is in the US. All would have the same rights. It's about not keeping an "hygienic" clear segregation of the population. It's about being the same family, something unthinkable for an American (or European, or Canadian, etc).

First of all it is pretty nasty of you to even imply as you said: “If this is indeed the basis of your philosophy, then please act like a corageous human being and simply come out and say that you are, essentially, a fascist, believing as you do in the fascist doctrine that the Nation State is the neé plus ultra of human existence.”

The only response that I have to that statement is that you are a real idiot.

You said: “Ricardo, under international law going back to before the 1500s, the native peoples of a given area are considered to have an existence and social identity that is prior to and supercedes any conquest by another power. This is the doctrine of native sovereignty and under it, simple conquest by Brazil gives Brazil no right to decree that native peoples needs must be eliminated.”

Here is a little information for you, in the year 1500 it is estimated that the total population of the world was around 500 million people and today the total world population is approaching 7 billion people.

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html

Around the year 1500 Europe had approximately 600 independent little countries, the Americas had been just discovered, and most of Africa was just a continent that had not been divided into the many countries, as we know today.

The world has changed a thousand times since the 1500’s and the concept of nation state also has evolved during that period of time.

Here is another idiotic comment that you made: “Brazil is a nation of CULTURES, plural. What your spouting here is simply a reworked, reheated version of old fascist concepts that were roundly proven incorrect in the 1940s.”

That Brazil is a nation state and an independent country is a fact. The people who are born in Brazil are Brazilian citizens.

I am proud of being a Brazilian citizen.

Let me give you the definition of the word assimilate and integrate:

Assimilated: to adjust or become adjusted - To become similar to one’s environment

Immigrants often want to assimilate quickly, to adjust and adapt to the new culture

To integrate, to open to people of all races or ethnic groups without restriction

And to admit (racial or ethnic group) to equal membership in an institution or society

You are so full of bulls**t when you said: “The claims of today's Indian groups to land and (at least semi-) independence has nothing to do, legally, with their "heritage" and everything to do with the international definition of sovereignty which Brazil is bound to uphold by UN charter.”

By the way, in the United States they took the land from the native American Indians, then they found a place that they thought was undesirable (like some desert in Arizona) and they sent the Indians to live in these Indian reservations.)

You said: “This is why all this talk of yours regarding assimilation is so much pissing in the wind, backed up by an abysmal ignorance regarding Indian affairs in the Americas:”

My response to you is would you be happier if the Brazilian government did round up all the remaining Brazilian native Indians living inside Brazilian territory and moved them to some reservation in some desert land in the state of Ceara?

Place them in some Indian reservation just like the United States did in the past with their native Indian population.

By the way, there is no political problem here, since all the native Brazilian Indians born in Brazilian territory are automatically Brazilian citizens.

.

Ricardo, your detour into global population theory is nice, but it doesn't in the slightest address my main point. The doctrine of native sovereignty was FOUNDED in the early exploration period but it has been REPEATEDLY REASSERTED SINCE THEN, most notoriously by the United Nations in the 1940s. It has been and still is the basis of Western international jurisprudence and that has not changed one single bit since 1500. The increase in global population does not change the fact that in Western law it is summarily illegal to perform ethnocide.

Let me give you the definition of the word assimilate and integrate:
Assimilated: to adjust or become adjusted - To become similar to one’s environment.

I don't know where you picked up that definition, but it certainly isn't the one used in the social sciences - or in politics for that matter. Here is the definition of "assimilation" according to the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology:

A term synonymous with acculturation, used to describe that process by which an outsider or subordinate group becomes indistinguishably integrated into the dominant society. Assimilation implies that the subordinate group comes to accept and internalize the values and culture of the dominant group as its own.

When you use "assimilate" in the sense you use it here, you are most definitely claiming that native groups need must give up their culture and accept what you consider to be Brazilian culture. This is the accepted scientific understanding of "assimilation" and certainly, in the context of the current debate, no one in Brasília considers it to be anything else. What we're talking about here, then, when we talk about "assimilation" is the destruction of Brazil's native peoples as discrete, distinct socio-political and cultural units.

With regards to the notion that Indian reservations are somehow "segregation", that concept was hoary and discredited back in the 1920s - 80 years ago, Ricardo. For you to be repeating such an argument today as if it were new and original is quite disturbing.

Reservations are not segregation. Why? Because Indians are not forced to keep to them. They are FREE to come and go as they choose within the larger surrounding society and in the U.S. they do precisely that. Reservations are exactly what the name implies: an area that is RESERVED to Indians where they CAN excercise a degree of socio-political and cultural independence, if that is their desire.

And yes, it is a POLITICAL and not a cultural question. Because of their membership within prior existing polities, Indians are today "citizens plus". This means that they do indeed have more rights than you and I. Such rights are codified by the respect for soverignty which lies at the basis of international law in the west.

Indians are, in other words, CITIZENS of Brazil AND ALSO citizens of native socio-political units. Reserving land for said units is not an excercize in segregation UNLESS citizenship in the surrounding socio-political unit (the nation-state) is also denied to them.

My response to you is would you be happier if the Brazilian government did round up all the remaining Brazilian native Indians living inside Brazilian territory and moved them to some reservation in some desert land in the state of Ceara?

What I love about Brazilians is that they always bring up the U.S. experience with Indians as if they actually knew something about it when, in fact, their understanding of U.S.-Indian relations bearly goes beyond what they've picked up from the odd John Ford flick.

Yes indeed, the U.S. began reservations as segregational units. That policy, however, was rejected in 1887 - more than 100 years ago, Ricardo. Since the end of the 19th century, Indians have had the right to be citizens of the U.S. AND citizens of their several tribes. In 1932, the reservation officially became defined as a unit of socio-cultural PRESERVATION, with tribal governments understood to be the caretakers of said lands for those Indians who CHOOSE to live on them. Indians who don't like life on the Rez are FREE to leave it. In fact, the U.S. Federal government has hundreds of programs which will help them do precisely that.

You comment about the "segregation of U.S. Indians in the desert", Ricardo. You apparently are talking about the Navajo, the largest desert-dwelling U.S. tribe. While yes, the U.S. did screw them out of a lot of their land, they are currently living where they have lived for the better part of a millenium. They were not relocated to their current rez from some verdant land of milk and honey: they have ALWAYS been desert dwellers. And there are some 300,000 of them today, Ricardo, about half of that living on the rez. They are a growing and vibrant tribe which enjoys the benefits of dual citizenship, not some oppressed and segregated people who are not treated as full citizens.

Go to the Navajo and ASK them if they'd be happier to lose their remaining lands in the name of some whacko "assimilation" program which promises to remove their "segregation". The main body of the tribe has been fighting such ideas for over 200 years now. Do you really think they feel oppressed and segregated by the fact that they have all the rights of any other American citizen AND the right to partake in a tribal existence if that's what they want to do? Are you being cynical here, Ricardo, or merely ignorant? Since when has giving people the OPTION to live as they like "segregation"?

What seems to upset you, Ricardo, is the concept that Indians, as sovereign peoples, have MORE rights than the average run of Brazilians. But assimilation will not eliminate those rights unless Brazil takes it upon itself to unilaterally abrogate its UN responsabilities (and, incidently, 500 years of Western legal tradition) by claiming that it has the right to eliminate its conquered peoples as coherent soci-political units - in other words, to conduct ethnocide.

The last political group who decided that they had the right to eliminate ethnic subgroups in the name of national unity in the West were the fascists and if it looks like a fascist and it talks like a fascist, I say there's a good chance it's a fascist. I may be wrong, Ricardo, but what precisely in your theory of of the nation and its relationship to ethnicity (is any different from the concept of the same as postulated by Bendito Mussolini? Perhaps if you'd explain this better I could ger a better handle on what you are, but from where I'm sitting right now, your shirt looks suspiciously green.

I'm being very precise in my definition of fascism, here (something which I can appreciate that you might not understand, used as you are to people screaming "fascist!" or "nazi!" and not knowing the meaning of those worlds). But in your belief that the nation-state must be fused with a People and that the State has the right to, in fact, construct this People at gunpoint, if necessary, you're right up there with old Bennie.

I mean, let's run down a check list...

1) You both consider the nation-state to be a culturally homogenous unit.

2) You both believe that the nation-state needs must be the highest form of human social organization.

3) You both believe that the nation-state is utterly autonomous, beholden to neither the social groups it contains or any higher law that that which it makes up.

4) Crucially, you both believe that a nation needs must have one (and only one) people.

5) Finally, you believe that the nation has the right - nay, the duty - to eliminate any sort of ethnic distinctiveness within its borders.

You're certainly not espousing some variant of nineteenth century nationalist-ethnic ideology, because those folks didn't see the State's role as being the active construction and maintenance of a homogenous people: they simply presumed such homogeneity existed.

So what IS your philosophy regarding the state and ethnicity based on, Ricardo, if not a luke-warm, reworked version of fascist concepts of the People? From where I'm sitting, it looks like Plínio Salgado warmed over.

A Brazilian, you are a troll. You pop up on this site, time and again, to make the most outrageous statements. Then, when someone tries to engage you in intelligent debate, you simply repeat what you say without acknowledging the other person's points at all. Finally, when it becomes apparent to one and all that you're out there somewhere cooking on Venus, you withdraw from the argument. This has been your pattern here time and again and I, for one, am unwilling to waste any more time on your trolls for attention.

You act like a child who kicks someone much larger in the shins, then runs away screaming that they beat up a giant.

I may disagree with Ricardo, but I have no reason to believe that he is a serial antagonist, something which I can't say about you. I'll argue with anyone in good faith, but I won't waste my time on trolls such as you.

Now shush, child, the adults are discussing topics that are as far beyond your ken as brain surgery is beyond that of a tapeworm.

That must have hurt, giant!

I'm sorry if my past behavior has offended anyone. Ever since I started with the santa daime I've been having these occasional... seizures. When they occur, I act like a complete lunatic, completely forgetting how little my opinion means to people and how little I really know about any given subject.

I suppose that I could try laying off the cocaine.... Do you think...?

Funny, Thaddeus! Hahahaha.

*Burp*

Sorry. That was the 'Tussin talking there.

I'm glad you're keeping yourself amused, at least.

Rationally speaking, either a people's soveriegn rights exist or they do not and might makes right.

If rights can be given, then they can be taken away.

Assimilation is about considering everyone else as an equal, without prefixes like it is in the US. All would have the same rights. It's about not keeping an "hygienic" clear segregation of the population. It's about being the same family, something unthinkable for an American (or European, or Canadian, etc).

God bless you, A Brazilian!

You're certainly not espousing some variant of nineteenth century nationalist-ethnic ideology, because those folks didn't see the State's role as being the active construction and maintenance of a homogenous people: they simply presumed such homogeneity existed.

So do these Indians you speak of constitute a "homogenous" people who can be classified as "Indians"? And should the said "homogenous" people known as "Indians" have for themselves what for all intents and purposes amounts to a nation-state; one which presumably encapsulates them as a "People" in line with nationalist-ethnic ideology?

Are you a fascist, Faggeus Poofteth?

Regarding sovereign rights, they are not given. That is precisely their point. They pre-exist by will of the people who make up the soveriegnty. An outside power cannot "give them" or "take them away". One needs must eliminate the members of the sovereignty's allegiance to said soveriegnty. Such a thing has never occurred in the history of the planet without a massive dose of violence.

So can Brazil try to eliminate native polities? Yes: by killing, jailing, or dispersing the populations. By kidnapping the children and forcing them to go to Indian schools where their culture and socio-political linkages are stripped from them. There are lots of means by which this may be tried. All of them are illegal under Western international law stretching back to the 1500s (and under the current UN charter). Were Brazil to do this, it would rightly be labled a practicioner of genocide and, even in today's climate, I doubt the country could get away with it.

So would it work if Brazil tried? Actually, the historical results of such policies must lead us to conclude "probably not". Organized ethnocide programs actually tend to INCREASE the feeling of ethnic solidarity through persecution which, of course, allows the ethnic group and its pretensions to political soveriegnty to survive and actually thrive. And ethnocide/genocide REALLY increases the feeling of persecution among the group which, in turn, leads to increased pressure for independent state formation, the idea being that "If the state we are in can't protect us and vouchsafe us our rights to be us, then the only solution is to create our state".

You want to get somebody to fight to the death for their right to be Indian and sovereign? Tell them that they can't.

So do these Indians you speak of constitute a "homogenous" people who can be classified as "Indians"?

The certainly aren't in relaity, but that's how State law tends to classify them. Both Brazil and the U.S. have an Indian policy, singular. In spite of some internal variations, said State indigenous policies tend to treat natives as if they were homogenous and that's what we're talking about here, isn't it... what said policies should be?

I mean, if you're seriously suggesting that the State should have a tailored indigenous policy which takes into account the concerns and needs of every single indigenous people within its borders, well... All I can say, Brazuca, is that is a hell of a more radical policy than anything I'm advocating here. I seriously doubt that such a policy would ever be effectuated, for obvious reasons. But it would be cool if it could be! Leave it to you to make a backhand play for Native rights in the course of trying to dicredit them!

And should the said "homogenous" people known as "Indians" have for themselves what for all intents and purposes amounts to a nation-state; one which presumably encapsulates them as a "People" in line with nationalist-ethnic ideology?

I've dealt with that above. In Western legal tradition, both in North and South America, Indians are basically at best "domestic dependent nations" (to use the NA jargon here). Note the plurality, as well. There are, as far as I'm aware, no serious plans to upgrade that status to that of a nation-state - and especially a homogenous, singular nation-state - and any such attempt would be as eminently actionable, in the legal sense, as a proposal to eliminate native polities in their entirety.

The certainly aren't in relaity, but that's how State law tends to classify them.

So if Brazilian state law ceased to classify "Indians" as "Indians" and instead classified them as Brazilians -- then it would be problem fixed. No more Indians. So no more need for an ethno-nationalist entity within which a homogeneous "Indian" Volk can huddle together and give each other approving nods to their finally realised nationalist ethnicity, where presumably those not of this "pure" ethnicity deemed "Indian" are excluded for fear of tainting the pristine and unspoilt blood of the "Indian"?

If Brazilian law sees them as Brazilian (as the Brazilian military seems to do) then I guess ... they're Brazilian. No?

Nope, Brazuca. It would not be "problem fixed" because sovereignty determinations are in the realm of international and not national law: a nation can ignore it, but that doesn't make the problem go away.

What you're saying, for example, moved to another sphere of legal affairs, is that your household can decide to eliminate the child abuse or murder laws. Problem fixed? No. Your household has a certain degree of independence, but it is an integral part of the surrounding community and for you to get away with abrogating that community's laws, your neighbors would have to be ignoring you.

Brazil is part of the western community of nations and said community has decided 100s of years ago - and has very recently upheld the idea - that ethnic cleansing is a no-no. Brazil might could get away with it in the short term, but even that is not likely and, as I said, it would probably just reinforce Native American ethnogenesis in the medium to long term - which is what you don't want to happen, right?

As for Indians being Brazilian, that's dealt with above. Nationality is not a pure, undiluted and whole state of being. You can have dual citizenship (as I do). Indians have a form of dual citizenship: they are simultaneously Brazilians AND simultaneously members of sub-national semi-soverign entities called "Indian tribes" which Brazil is bound by international law to respect and protect. Being the one in no ways cancels out the other. So Indians are, in fact, "Brazilians plus": they have the same rights and responsabilities as other Brazilians, plus ADDITIONAL rights and responsabilities which stem from their membership in native polities. This is exactly the same sort of thing that I have as a dual citizen: I have rights and responsabilities, in fact, in THREE different nations.

And furthermore, this situation is not apartheid, for Indians are free to abrogate their Native citizenship whenever they want.

If you want to get rid of those native polities, Brazuca, the only legal and moral way to do it is to CONVINCE the Indians that they don't need them any more.

Good luck.

A quick question. If Native Americans have the same rights as Americans, Why is that the US government has over and over again infringed their rights under the First Amendment? If in doubt, do a research about the San Francisco Peaks and the Supreme Court decision. Try to do this with a Muslim in the US or to any other religion and the ACLU would be suing you from left and right. The Federal government owns many lands, and the tribes have an agreement,

My uncle (my husband's aunt (she is a Brit) married a Cherokee, they live in CA) has mentioned the unequal treatment that Native Americans suffer EVERYDAY. Your eloquent argument makes me ponder about the Navarro lady I met last year at GMU. In the Rez as you know, life can be a misery. It is not as you would like to portray, many tribes are excluding other members (especially in Rez where gambling right goes on)for not being "100%" Native American.

She complained about poverty, unequal rights under the U.S. Constitution, lack of opportunity for those who decide to stay, rape of minors, drug problems, rampant numbers of alcoholism. Yes, certainly they can live if they wish, but the future outside the reservation is far from what you trying to paint.

The truth is, Brazil and the US are guilty of the same crime. We continue to have a conqueror attitude towards the Indians. I agree with you, they have the right to be dual citizens, however, BR and US MUST respect their rights under the Constitution-and we don't!

When I asked you whether "Indians" constituted a "homogenous" people who can be classified as "Indians", you replied: "The certainly aren't in relaity, but that's how State law tends to classify them."

So Indians aren't a homogenous people in reality, that is, aren't "Indians" in reality, but that's how Brazilian state law classifies them. And then you say: "In spite of some internal variations, said State indigenous policies tend to treat natives as if they were homogenous and that's what we're talking about here, isn't it... what said policies should be?"

So on the one hand, it's all due to how Brazilian state law classifies what it deems to be a certain people. On the other hand, it has nothing to do with how the Brazilian state law classifies or doesn't classify certain people but rather has everything to do with "international law", which trounces whatever Brazilian state law may have to say on the matter.

Which is it? Do "Indians", as a homogenous ethno-nationalist entitity, exist by virtue of Brazilian state law (as you say above), or does this Indian Volk exist by virtue of "international law"? Either way, does such an advocacy of a homogenous ethno-national entity constitute an advocacy of fascism? If not, why not?

And furthermore, this situation is not apartheid, for Indians are free to abrogate their Native citizenship whenever they want.

This semi-sovereign region you propose for the Indians -- would other Brazilians be able to go and live there? If not, why not? Would it not be apartheid to not allow other Brazilians to be able to freely move in and out of and inhabit what is the sovereign territory of Brazil? If other Brazilians face restrictions as to whether they can enter or live in this proposed semi-sovereign region, doesn't that mean some Brazilians would be subject to apartheid, and would for all intents and purposes be treated as second-class citizens in their own country?

Just to continue the First Paragraph,

The Federal Government owns lands, and under the commerce clause, they Fed can make decisions regarding snow making for safety and rule in favor of business and the people. However, if you do a research on the matter, you will find out that the peak in question has been a sacred place for a long time, before America's existence. Under the Antiquities and Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the peak is recognized as antiquity (anything related to tribes is considered old, the Act was created to stop looting of sites in the West) and religious site. Therefore, if you look it in pure legal terms, the courts and the US government did not respect the First amendment.

The Native Americans in this country do not have the same rights as other citizens, they may have it on the books, but rarely it is respected.

BINGO!!

This semi-sovereign region you propose for the Indians -- would other Brazilians be able to go and live there? If not, why not? Would it not be apartheid to not allow other Brazilians to be able to freely move in and out of and inhabit what is the sovereign territory of Brazil?

In fact, in America, certain tribes have expelled their own members for not being "100%" Native American. I suppose that is also discrimination, wouldn't you agree?

In America, Federal land is held in Trust because it belongs to the "people", how about in Brazil?

There's only one problem with the "Century of Dishonor thesis" (which is what you seem to be espousing here): it simply ignores the many victories that Native Americans have actually won over the years. If things were as absolutely one-sided as you claim, Indians would have been eliminated long ago.

OF COURSE nation states do not like semi-sovereign entities within their borders. OF COURSE they tend to have a relationship of constant struggle with them and this struggle often resembles David Vs. Goliath.

None of that, however, changes the one single, salient fact which we are talking about here: nation states cannot legally abrogate the existence of previously existing soveriegn polities under western international law. The fact that you - and in fact most people in the west - recognize that much of what was done to the Indians was a crime is proof of this.

As for life on the Rez, yes, it often is miserable. That, however, is not an excuse for abolishing the Rez, as Ricardo would have it here. Ask any Indians if they think the remaining Indian lands should be tossed in the gutter in the name of assimilation as Ricardo and Brazuca propose. The beef you seem to be talking about is not that Rezes exist, but that they are not open to residence by anyone who walks up and says "Hi. I'm an Indian".

There are two ways to be declared an Indian in the U.S.: tribal membership and BIA fiat. The first proceeds according to tribal law and yes, most tribes require a minimum blood quantum and most ALSO require proof of some sort of family residency or recent tribal activity in the past. Why? Because otherwise, every American who did a DNA scan and found that they have some Indian ancestors somewhere in the woodshed would be lining up for BIA bennies.

The second way to get status is to prove to the BIA that you are at least 25% Native American.

In the case of your uncle's wife, though, I wonder what the problem could be? The Cherokee are NOTORIOUSLY loose in their tribal citizenship requirements. Pretty much anyone who can prove that they once had a Cherokee ancestor can get into the tribe if they like. So it's hard for me to fathom why your uncle's wife can't get in unless she has either never really tried or - like many Americans who say they are "part Cherokee" - simply can't prove that she has any Cherokee ancestors, in spite of what Grandma may have told her.

BtW, it is one of the biggest American myths, white and black, that everyone has an Indian princess great-great-grandmother. When pressed to give the NAME of this particular ancestor, however, most Americans couldn't tell you s**t. Under U.S. law, a trace of DNA alone is not enough to make one an Indian: one must either have a MINIMUM blood quantum or - better still - some blood quantum AND a living political, social and cultural relationship with tribe. Just saying you have an Indian great-great somewhere is not enough to get you tribal membership, nor should it be.

As for my painting "the future outside the reservation", I haven't even talked about it, let alone described it in possitive terms. What I HAVE discussed is the legal necessity of having reservations or something like them. I think that argument completely blew by you and you are mistaking me for someone else.

Finally, I'm interested, exactly, in what constitutional rights you feel are being abbrogated in the U.S. You mention first ammendment rights: how, precisely are they being violated?

You mention the Peaks case. Whether or not you disagree with the Court's decision, it's hardly clear-cut First Ammendment. As I understand it, the tribes in question have no title to said land, correct? It's a political question of jurisdiction. I might personally be in favor of the tribes point, but legally, their position is very debatable. They are essentially attempting to excercise spiritual domain over land that is not theirs by any extant treaty agreement - correct me if I'm wrong here. Under existing Indian law, they are as wrong (or not) as the Catholic Church would be if it tried to get a housing developer blocked because his projects might dry up the fountain at Lourdes. It's not a simple cut-and-dried case of religious persecution, as you're making it out to be. The Antiquities and Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which is not a part of the constitution, btw) was never intended to protect the landscape itself and you'd have to get some high court to give a radical interpretation of that law to make it so. Which doesn't mean it couldn't happen, but it certainly isn't going to happen overnight. I applaud the struggle at the Peaks, but from a Western legal standpoint, it simply isn't as cut and dried as you make it out to be. It is, indeed, eminently debatable from both sides.

Now, you say...

The Native Americans in this country do not have the same rights as other citizens, they may have it on the books, but rarely it is respected.

...which is a fairly cynical reading of the Peaks situation. Neither you nor I have the right to excercise unilateral spiritual domain over the landscape, so the fact that the tribes also do not have it in this case can't be considered a lack of rights as vouchsafed to other citizens. What they are trying to do here, in fact, is assert their EXTRA rights: rights you and I don't have, according to the constitution, but which they have according to some readings of the accumulated body of Indian law (and NOT the constitution). I support them in that excercise but let's be real here: it's not a constitutional issue.

Big Mountain was a MUCH better case if you want to talk about illegal Federal interference. There, the Federal government actively intervened on Indian land in favor of big enterprise.

Of course, from the standpoint of many Natives, western legal thought on these matters is so much horses**t, all part of the white man's game to defraud them, which may in fact be so. But until Crazy Horse comes back from the Happy Hunting Grounds to lead the final Ghost Dance, it is, unfortunately, pretty much the only game in town.

So Indians aren't a homogenous people in reality, that is, aren't "Indians" in reality, but that's how Brazilian state law classifies them.

Correct. More to the point, that is how the accumulated body of western international legal thought on this matter classifies them. Not as "Indians", exactly, but as members of prior-existing polities which were conquered in the course of settlement. We tend to gloss that here in the New World as "Indians". The root of this definition is extra-national, however (meaning it is not dependent on definitions internal to Brazilian history and politics).

Putting it simply, then, the basis of the Brazilian definition of Indian is international law. In fact, the SPI was originally set up in 1910 to meet international complaints that Brazil was conducting genocide among its Indians. The very first thing the Brazilian government did, in this case, was send away to the U.S. to ask for information on how that nation had set up it Bureau of Indian Affairs. In the 1930s, responding once again to changes in U.S. Indian administration to further accusations of gneocide, Brazil reformed the SPI and set up the CNPI, again, following models prescribed by the U.S. BIA. And when, finally, the SPI was destroyed by the military regime in the 1960s, FUNAI was set up, once again following for the most part American notions of how to deal with the "Indian problem". FUNAI's subsequent "turn to the native" in the 1980s and '90s followed, yet again, international pressures and accusations that Brazil was not following international law regarding Indians. And today's current bro-ha-ha borrows much from the American debate regarding the limits of Indian soveriegnty in such issues as cassinos and nuclear waste dumps.

Brazil has NEVER had a completely 100% "Brazilian" definition of "Indianess", Brazuca. Not even close. The country has pretty much been a whore to international fashion on this issue and its often contradictory Indian policy is a reflection of this. About the only truly "Brazilian" element one can find in Brazilian Indian affairs is the far-right military assessment of Indians as an integral part of National Security. that particular argument went out of favor in the U.S. back in the early 1800s.

So no, it is not all due to how Brazilian state law classifies a people: as I have said repeatedly, it is due to how WESTERN-BASED INTERNATIONAL LAW classifies a people. Brazil can reclassify Indians all it likes - just as you could reclassify your wife as a non-human piece of property, if you like - but the surrounding legal community would not agree to that change and this is what would get Brazil (or you, in our metaphor, into trouble).

This seems to be the one point that you and Ricardo cannot get your heada around, Brazuca: Indian rights are ultimately based on INTERNATIONAL law, not on national law. Nothing is preventing Brazil - or indeed any nation - from sending its ethnic minorities off to concentration camps, if that's what it choose other than a) the morals of its citizenry and b) the probability that the rest of the Western world would classify the nation that did this as a bunch of immoral barbarians whose leaders need to be hauled in front of the World Court.

Now, the World Court doesn't have much in the way of immediate power, but I sincerely doubt that any Brazilian president wants to be put on the same witness stand Milosevic so recently occupied, even if he comes out OK on the other side of the process.

This semi-sovereign region you propose for the Indians -- would other Brazilians be able to go and live there?

Good question. As long as they obey local and federal laws, I would presume so. What they would not beable to do is own land there: said land being under tribal jurisdiction.

In both U.S. and Brazilian law, btw, the ultimate trustholder for the land is the Nation State. It's rights in Indian Territory, however, are abrogated by its agreements with the tribe in question, within certain limits. In the U.S., these limits are defined by a huge body of federal Indian law. In Brazil, they are - like so much else in our country - completely up for grabs, catch as catch can, from one government to the next.

In fact, in America, certain tribes have expelled their own members for not being "100%" Native American. I suppose that is also discrimination, wouldn't you agree?

First of all, AFAIK, no one is being "expelled" from tribes. what is occuring is that some people who claim to be Indians are not being allowed into tribes based on those claims. In some cases, these claims are historically and culturally justified. In others, they are not. In any case, simply saying "Hey, I'm an Indian because Grandma told me I am" is not considered enough by either the tribes or the federal government to get you Indian status.

And having personally met many white and black "Indians" who don't know their family histories, who don't speak any native tongue, who have no prior history of life on or around any living Native community going back three or four generations and whose only "proof" of "Indianess" is either a) a DNA scan or b) some 19th century birth certificate of a great-great who ended up on a tribal census list, I agree with this policy.

DNA doesn't make one an Indian: historical, cultural, political and economic ties to tribes makes one an Indian. And yes, tribes are allowed to determine whatever the hell they like in terms of qualifications for citizenship, just as under U.S. law churches can do the same. Indian tribes are SPECIFICALLY removed from federal laws against racial and ethinc discrimination, btw. They are pretty much the one instance, in both Brazil and the U.S., where one can get away with saying "Indians only", as long as it opens up opportunities for Indians. One cannot use race to negatively discriminate against Indians in either culture.

It's no wonder so many people want to be legally declared Indian these days: it opens up a wealth of opportunities to the unscrupilous. This is precisely why both the federal governments and the tribes are so leary of opening up the classification to anyone who wants it.

I disagree with you, the Peak case is a good one to point out the dual system in this country. The Peak has been used a religious site for longer than our existence.
My husband's uncle has a brother who live in one of the Cherokee rez, he chose not to live there due to all the social issues involved. Still, he left and was able to accomplish a lot of things in life-he did it alone! The great American spirit!

Now, going back to the Acts, they are not part of the constitution, we all now that. But if you read your consitution again and I am assuming you know how Bills become law, you will see that Congress has the right to enact laws. Therefore, the Antiquities Act, mention about historic sites. Why do you think Peak is a historical site? And the Peak is protected under the act. The Freedom of Restoration act was created to stop First Amendement abuse. The Shebert test was not even used in this case, therefore, I must say that the Native Americans views of the mountain as a religious site was not respected by the Supreme Court.

Believe, when I say that I have experience in the area of law and natural resources, we trampled on their right and continue to do so. I will continue to disagree with you, as many Native Americans who had their religious site raped by the courts of this country.

As you may know, the federal government IS required to conduct a Environmental Impact Statement (not EIA) under NEPA. NEPA was at the beggining used for environmental issues but read it carefully, if it impacts humans, then you should mitigate and provide alternatives. The EIS was never conducted by the U.S. Forestry, which is a government agency and it has the obligation to do an EIS BEFORE it goes implements anything. Why? Because the job (chief) is nominated by the president-that is called checks and balances-you learned that in 8th grade civics didn't you?


The case involved 13 TRIBES, not one. Here is the link:

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40399

Native Americans may have rights on the books, but I will continue to say, like in Brazil their rights are always violated. I agree with you, they are dual citizens with dual cultures and we must respect them and everyone else for that matter.

You know quite well that we have a court system that views issues in a very strick sense, perhaps we'll pay for this in years to come.

http://www.lapahie.com/Dine_Photos.cfm

Look through the website. Land dispute with the US government goes back to a long way, it has been an issue under the Spaniards, British, French and the Americans.

And did we learn anything?

Shelly,

We actually aren't far apart in our sympathies. What you don't seem to grasp is that I'm making a LEGALISTIC argument while you are making a moral and ethical argument.

The Acts are not part of the U.S.' constitution, no matter how much you'd like them to be, Shelly. They were not set up to protect the landscape. I have read them. They may be extended to do precisely that, but that will take court action according to the way things work in the U.S. legal system. Stretching those acts to cover the landscape is most definitely not something that's implied by any sane reading of the Constitution. What the Constitution says is that Congree makes the laws (which they did) and the Judiciary interprets them (which it is in the process of doing). Just because the Judiciary comes up with a decision you don't agree with doesn't suddenly make said decision unconstitutional. Nor does f**king up the EIS make the situation unconstitutional, though it certainly makes it actionable under environmental law.

Believe what I say when I say that I have hands-on experience with Indian law and Indian administration history. And if you noticed, I did indeed say "tribes", plural.

But you are wrong to believe that the U.S. court system has always, for ever and ever, ruled against Indians. I suggest you read some Vine Deloria Jr. on this issue, particulary American Indians, American Justice. And if you can get through that, pick Felix Cohen's monumental Handbook of Indian Affairs and give it a read-through. This is basic bibliography stuff for the kind of issues you're trying to tackle here. Your background in natural resource law is not enough to stear you true on Indian law, Shelly.

And "century of dishonor" rhetoric isn't going to win this issue, sister. Do a search on "Helen Hunt Jackson" while your at it...

Would it not be apartheid to not allow other Brazilians to be able to freely move in and out of and inhabit -- and own land in -- what is the sovereign territory of Brazil? If other Brazilians face restrictions as to whether they can own land on this proposed semi-sovereign region, doesn't that mean some Brazilians would be subject to apartheid, and would for all intents and purposes be treated as second-class citizens in their own country, and this on account of their "race"? Should not everyone be equal under the law?

They may be extended to do precisely that, but that will take court action according to the way things work in the U.S. legal system. Stretching those acts to cover the landscape is most definitely not something that's implied by any sane reading of the Constitution. What the Constitution says is that Congree makes the laws (which they did)


I never said the acts were in the constitution. If you read what I said, I mentioned Congrees enacts laws. The Bill is introduced in the house or senate, generally there are two versions of the same bill, and I can give you an example: Go to Thomas and do a search on Right Whale. There is a Bill introduced in the senate by Kerry and another in the House by Republican Thomas H. Allen.

Obviously it goes to a committee and subcommittee for approval, changes are made, and if time allows, it gets a vote. Therefore the Antiquities Act of 1906, was enacted by Congress because as the West expansion went on, looting of old Indian sites were changing the landscape, and thanks to Anthropologists, the Act was passed in 1906.

The Act IS a legal document. Therefore we have a scenario here. The Peak IS protected under the laws within the ACT. Also, HISTORICALLY, the site HAS been used as a religious site over and over for centuries. Supreme Court rulings in cases of First Amendment have looked in the past historical events to rule in favor or against a case. I understand that it is up to the court to decide this, however the tribes in question didn't just decide yesterday that the peak was a religious site. Under the Free Exercise Clause, I believe their rights were infringed by the courts. It is, as you say, precisely a matter of interpretation. We don't really know what the Founding Father meant, the language in law is always ambiguious. I have also trainining in Religion and Public Policy, it was part of my academic endevours in this country. Therefore, I will give you a case which used history and tradition and it was affirmed. Read the cas Van Order Vs Perry, but read Rehnqist opinion, in which Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas join.

"It is true that religion has been closedly identified with our history and governmnet...The fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unilienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearl evidence in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself..It can be truly said, therefore, that today, as in the the beginning, our nationlife reflects a religious people who, in words of Madison, are 'enestly praying, as... in duty of bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe...guide them into every measure which may be worhty of his [blessing...] Id., at 212-213."

What I find interesting is that the Natives, have used HISTORICALLY the peak as a sacred place. The mere use of a monument today, does not imply under certain court judgement as historical use. Other cases have argued exactly that, that history and use CAN make a place or thing sacred.

Now, going back to the legality-which is what I am aruguing for, the Natives under the Free Exercised Clause are being prohibited, in my view, the lawyers view, the ACLU view, to practice their religion. Why because the snow is 1)made of sewage, 2)it is opening a sacred place to commerce, therefore a violation of their religion, and 3)it is a health safety for those who live in the area.

There is, in my opinion, not a doubt that the Court's ruling was wrong. It is very simple, in my opinion, to dictate if something is sacred or has been used as such-go back to history.

I wonder what would happen if we decided to put sewage water on top of the National Cathedral!

The peak, Thaddeus, is protected under the Act. Not only the ruling violated to allow commerce in a area which is an Antiquity, but also, it violated the First Amendment.


"by RAYMOND HARRIS THOMPSONhttp://www.questia.com/googleScholar. qst;jsessionid=L2kFQTRgpK1XNztqv9GgxGhzFGcV6J6ZBS9sw0pq
vL60NLKgHn4Q!147932901?docId=5002364528

BEGINNINGS OF PUBLIC INTEREST IN AMERICAN INDIAN ANTIQUITIES

The abandoned and ruined dwellings of prehistoric man in the American West had aroused the interest and comment of explorers and colonizers for centuries. Not until after the Civil War, however, did these ruins, and the continuing discovery of still others, attract the serious attention of the eastern scientific community. Public interest in the continent's ancient civilizations brought about no less than five significant developments portentous for American archaeology in the single year of 1879. They mark 1879 as the beginning of the movement that led, a quarter of a century later, to adoption of the Antiquities Act as the first national historic preservation policy for the United States."


process of doing). Just because the Judiciary comes up with a decision you don't agree with doesn't suddenly make said decision unconstitutional.


The legality is EXACTLY what I am trying to argue for. It is up to the courts to interpret the law. However, the interpretation varies as you know, with different justice system. Look at Scalia, or long gone, Renquihist. He had, in my opinion, a more conservative look if you compare to O'Connor.

I have read the majority opinion on different cases by a lot of the justices in this country. I it rare that they change how they are going to rule wheter it is an environmental case, in the case of the Peak it includes both an environmental and religious issue.I disagree with the courts' opinion and the 13 tribes, the ACLU, and other organizations supporting their right under the US constitution.

We can argue here forever, your opnion differs from mine, that is fine with me, we won't agree on anything. However, we both agree that Indians deserved to be reconized by the law in Brazil and diserve their land, culture, and lifehood to be protected.

In the US, they have own a lot of recognition, although in elementary school books this country still teaches wrong information about how the Natives dealt with the environment, their social organization and it does not teach well about how they died. One 5th grade book I encountered (I have older kids), mentioned disease. Sure enough, by they were slaughtered and nothing in the book(until you reach high school or beyond) mentions the truth. Same with Spanish-American war.

Again, "white man's" version of history is hardly going to give the Native tribes recognition for their rich culture and place in history.

I will read your suggestion, I bet it will be a good read!

http://www.savethepeaks.org/co...-15371.wma

Would it not be apartheid to not allow other Brazilians to be able to freely move in and out of and inhabit -- and own land in -- what is the sovereign territory of Brazil?

Nope.

According to soverignty law, it is the unceded land of a prior existing polity which Brazil is legally bound to respect and defend. It is only "Brazilian" land in that sense. Brazil has overarching responsability for it and some degree of control over it (i.e. it can regulate certain forms of behavior regarding it in as far as these impact upon the nation as a whole), but Brazil is bound to respect the exclusive Indian title to it. In this sense, Indian groups are legally private landholders, bound by Indian law with regards to what they do and don't with their land. You and I have no "inherent right" to do what we like in Indian Territory just as I have no inherent right, based on my Brazilianess, to set up residence in your living room.

The land is vouchsafed by the Republic, as all land in the Republic ultimately is, but it has an owner: the Indians. Brazil can't change that situation without a pressing, greater need that impacts upon all people in the Republic. Growing soybeans for export just ain't it, Hoss.

If other Brazilians face restrictions as to whether they can own land on this proposed semi-sovereign region, doesn't that mean some Brazilians would be subject to apartheid, and would for all intents and purposes be treated as second-class citizens in their own country, and this on account of their "race"?

Not at all.

First of all, the State is completely justified in allowing certain classes of people to buy land - or not - in certain regions. Gringos, for example, can't buy beaches (in fact, by law, no one can). Brazil (and the U.S., for that matter) is full of rules of this sort.

Secondly, "Indian" is not a race description: it is a political-ethnic and legal description. There are "white" and "black" Indians out there. The legal status of Indian reservations is founded on soverignty law and not racial segregation. South Africa, in fact, tried to dance around this issue with the establishment of its Bantustans and was roundly slapped down in court. While it could, indeed, reserve lands for it's native peoples based on international sovereignty law, what it COULD NOT DO was restrict said people to such lands and see them as less than national citizens.

THAT was the West's beef with apartheid, Brazuca: not the idea that native peoples should have lands reserved for their exclusive use. It's blacks being LEGALLY RESTRICTED TO THEM AND DENIED CITIZENSHIP IN THE SURROUNDING NATION that was the key point of apartheid that violated western soveriegnty law, Brazuca. Not reserves, per se.

The main argument here is not even the act, but it is in fact, the use of the Peak and the desecration of their religion.

It amazes me that we still treat the Native's religion differently from mainstream American.

According to soverignty law, it is the unceded land of a prior existing polity which Brazil is legally bound to respect and defend. It is only "Brazilian" land in that sense. Brazil has overarching responsability for it and some degree of control over it (i.e. it can regulate certain forms of behavior regarding it in as far as these impact upon the nation as a whole)

Agree, people seem to forget that Federal land, in Brazil and the US is given to government in TRUST. Therefore, the government CAN regulate. However, in the US the Federal governmen is obligated to issue Notice of Intent for public comment. Someone represeting the government sits with a tape recording-not a lawyer, and gives the public the right to comment concerns for and against.

Back to the Case which I was talking about. They ignored the relevant comments. The Federal Register, regarding the EIS, does not mention once the impact of using sewage water as a religious descration or the importance of using clean water in rituals.

Now, I don't believe we have the same process in Brazil-at least here we do!

The fact is, it IS different from mainstream religion and SHOULD be treated as such. I mean, that's the whole gist of your argument, isn't it? Neither the Catholics, Jews, Protestants, or Islamics are attempting to declare the very landscape as sacred and U.s. religious law wasn't set up to deal with this kind of situation.

So you need to be arguing IN FAVOR of difference here, Shelly, not against it.

Actually, the process in Brazil for this sort of thing is pretty much similar: government makes law; big business whines that said law makes it lose money; government ignores the very law it made.

The fact is, it IS different from mainstream religion and SHOULD be treated as such. I mean, that's the whole gist of your argument, isn't it?

My comment, you have taken it literally, meant to say that we would not be even arguing about this, if we were talking about the muslims and desecrating the place of worship, this would not happen because they would create a havoc in the courts.

Again, you should be looking at the historical facts, the Peak has been used longer than any church on this land as a sacred place. They are US citizens just like you and have under the First Amendment, the have the right to worship whoever/whatever they want. You missed the point, the Exercise Clause explicity says (second part, first part deals with the Establishment Clause)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abriding the freedom of spech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, an to petition the government for a redress of grievance".

The Peak is partial Federal land and partial Navarro land. As Federal land, the government has the right to manage. However, IT MUST before making any changes to the land, give a N.O.I. , and if actions involve people or wildlife, do an EIS (NEPA ACT).

The argument has 2 sides: the fact that the Forestry service didn't do their job according to the law, and the sewage water use on the mountain is a desecration of the Peak. By doing so, the Goverment has prohibited them from using the sacred land. There are rituals that have been performed on that very same land for thousands of years. Sacred tombs, if you know the history of the Navajo, you know that the elders "live" in the Peak, therefore the mountain is not dead and always living.

You are wrong, the First Amendment there to protect ALL religions. During the early years of this country, there were Catholics here too, not just Protestants,a small number Jews, and the Native Americans religion.

Religions are different, they will always be. But the fundamentals of the Constitution is not, and the courts, from time-to-time, depending on the political affiliation (yes, it should not count, but it does), they lean towards religion or against it. There are 10 Commendment cases galore to proven just that.

The problem is very simple. Fees from the park were going to be given to the Forest Service. They have a business that they needed to take care of. Therefore, there are other laws involved here, not just the religion or environmental laws. Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, I think the ruling was in favor of the Commerce Clause.

I'm wrong? Where did I say that the first ammendment didn't protect all religions?

Er... And by the way...

You wave the First Ammendment around as if it was liscence to do pretty much anything as long as it's done in the name of God.

That's not how it works and you know it, Shelly. Reflect on the Branch Davidians.

What does international law have to say about the creation of Brazil, that is, the invasion by the Portuguese of what had been Indian territory? Did the Portuguese, and their progeny in the "Brazilians", have a legitimate claim to what we now call Brazil but what had hitherto been Indian territory? Wouldn't the only legitimate recompense to this theft of the Indians' land be the return of all of it to its rightful owners? If a thief, say, steals your belongings and is subsequently caught, is it up to him to determine how much of your belongings he will return to you? Obviously those belongings were never legitimately his, and he is obliged to return all of it.

So if what we know nowadays as Brazil was territory belonging to the Indians, and was illegitimately stolen from them, then don't the Indians, as the rightful owners of this territory, entitled to reclaim all of it, that is, all of Brazil?

First of all, the State is completely justified in allowing certain classes of people to buy land - or not - in certain regions. Gringos, for example, can't buy beaches (in fact, by law, no one can). Brazil (and the U.S., for that matter) is full of rules of this sort.

So presumably the South African state was completely justified in allowing certain classes of people to buy land -- or not -- in certain regions.

Me things you'd have like Apartheid!

THAT was the West's beef with apartheid, Brazuca: not the idea that native peoples should have lands reserved for their exclusive use. It's blacks being LEGALLY RESTRICTED TO THEM AND DENIED CITIZENSHIP IN THE SURROUNDING NATION that was the key point of apartheid that violated western soveriegnty law, Brazuca. Not reserves, per se.

But other Brazilians will be legally restricted within their own country, and thereby denied their full rights of citizenship. Instead of Brazilians all being equal before the law, some Brazilians will evidently be more equal than others.

This is just Apartheid with makeup on.

What does international law have to say about the creation of Brazil, that is, the invasion by the Portuguese of what had been Indian territory?

At the time, it was justified using "just war" theory, much in the same way that Bush conquered and occupied Iraq. So I guess you could try to convince the wrold that Brazil has a legitimate beef with the Terena or whomever. Good luck.

Even then, however, certain tribes were recognized as allies and their land claims were respected.

Did the Portuguese, and their progeny in the "Brazilians", have a legitimate claim to what we now call Brazil but what had hitherto been Indian territory? Wouldn't the only legitimate recompense to this theft of the Indians' land be the return of all of it to its rightful owners?

Oh, it's much more complicated than that!

First of all, not all land in Brazil was actually "caimed" by native groups. Secondly, the Portuguese - as colonizers did everywhere - also came into some land through legitimate treaties. The view that Indian/white relations was characterized by an unbroken, conquering march from one side of the nation to the other is pretty damned ignorant. You need to really get into the history of the thing to see what lands Brazil has a legitimate claim to.

Also, under the "domestic dependent nation" theory of soveriegnty, the Brazilian nation is justified in acting as the Indians "protectors" (note I'm not DEFENDING this position, just remarking that it exists and is globally accepted - you're not going to get the UN in an uproar by adhering to it). What it CANNOT do is simply toss all Indian land onto the open market and say "to hell with it".

Looking at the U.S. Indian situation, even the most militant Native Americans will admit that about half of the land does indeed belong to the U.S., free and clear, by right of legitimate treaty. Another 25% or so was acquired through outright theft and should be returned post-haste. Only 25% is really subject to juridical discussion.

And that, I will remind you, is the MOST militant point of view. The least militant generally takes the stance that "We're happy with our current reserves, as long as the U.S. doesn't allow their environment to become completely destroyed through extra-reservation activity" (i.e. the Peaks case).

So presumably the South African state was completely justified in allowing certain classes of people to buy land -- or not -- in certain regions.

South Africa, as I understand it, doesn't allow people to buy land in nature preserves, correct? And, IIRC, the Bushmen still have land that is exclusively reserved to them. The key here are laws which protect the greater good or a small group in question and which are accepted by and agreed to by said group. That is the distinction between Apartheid and the rez system: in the one case, natives are RESTRICTED to life on the rez unless they get permission otherwise. They have a restricted citizenship. In the other, thye aren't: they are citizens plus.

So why don't YOU have equal rights in such a case? Simple: you're not a member of a prior-existing native polity. The polity's prior existence to the polity you belong to gives it members certain special rights which are vouchsafed by the national justice system. Those rights are not an EXCEPTION to citizenship: they exist prior to it and are IN ADDITION TO citizenship. That is completely different from South African apartheid where prior existing rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were CURTAILED in order to construct the Bantustan system and where Bantustan residents were deprived of the effective use of national citizenship.

What is the correct balance for these rights? Well, that's constantly in discussion and constantly changing.

But other Brazilians will be legally restricted within their own country...

No they won't because a) legally, it's the federal government's country, not yours or mine, and b) the land inquestion was never legally ceded to Brazil, so it's thus not even the federal government's land. All they do is stand to it as protector, not owner. they have the right to impede that what happens on said land negatively affects the rest of the republic. They do not have the right to remove original title and let you set up a McDonald's franchise there.

This is just Apartheid with makeup on.

Good thing more well-informed people than you are making the laws then, hey?

(Though seeing the current Supreme Court's activities, I have my doubts...)

Don't be cynical, Brazuca. Your opinions on this board are well-known. you are not some sort of anti-racism crusader and I very much doubt you ever thought twice about apartheid when it was in effect. This whole spurious argument you're constructing simply uses the spectre of "apartheid" because you - like most right-wing Brazilian nationalists - believe that Indians should have absolutely no independent existence from that of the nation which surrounds them.

You wave the First Ammendment around as if it was liscence to do pretty much anything as long as it's done in the name of God.

That's not how it works and you know it, Shelly. Reflect on the Branch Davidians.

No, I am not waving the First Amendment around, what I am is demonstrating with facts is that Indian tribes in Brazil and in the US, are constantly having their rights as citizens of said country infringed.

To be honest with you, I think it is a disgrace how Brazil treats its own citizens, period. Jack Abramoff was sentenced to 4 years in prison. He has deceived the Native Americans and owns them of millions of dollars. I command the courts for putting him behind bars, however, we know that he is a scapegoat and the REAL culprit still in the oval office.

If you or someone decides to worship a pen, then it is up to them. They can worship a pen, nothing in the First Amendment says that a person cannot worship a pen. It says RELIGION, and if a group of people or a single person worships a pen, then it is protected under the F. A. It also doesn't say that you have to worship God. The concept of God is different for different people. The First Amendment doesn't mention God, again it says Religion.

The main point is, the peak HAS ALWAYS been used as a religious entity. It goes back BEFORE the advent of America, BEFORE the Protestant religion was brought into this country. You know, Thaddeus, quite well that you can prove in court if something has historical base, the justice system committed a grave injury to a group of people who has been worshiping the peak for more than 200 years!!! If that doesn't establish religion, than I don't know what else does!

Some people I know like to wave the flag of the ESA (Endangered Species Act), however we also forget how cultures are on the brink of extinction by dictator like governments. The land in question was never given or bought by the Brazilian government. It is very similar to the US the BR gov. holds in TRUST. They can regulate if it is for the benefit of the majority-much like the Supremacy Clause. Therefore if they do something, they should have a democratic process-but that won't happen, Lula is far away from representing democracy.

"Will we continue a predatory model of exploitation that doesn't respect the law?," he asked. "Or will Brazil be transformed - definitively - into a country that develops itself sustainably, and respects human rights?"

That is the most eloquent speech I have seen on Brazzil Magazine.

Wierd. No idea why my last two comments up there are headed "Written by Brazuca". That certainly wasn't intentional on my part.

No, I am not waving the First Amendment around, what I am is demonstrating with facts is that Indian tribes in Brazil and in the US, are constantly having their rights as citizens of said country infringed.

No, that's not what you're saying. You're saying a given tribe considers part of the landscape sacred and it should thus be protected and to not do so is ipso facto a violation of the first ammendment - a violation that is illegal according to the constitution and that is specific to Indians.

Not true in either case.

1) The constitution does not make all things holy simply because a group says that they are holy. Interpretations of this nature are left up to the courts. This is as it should be.

2) This sort of thing is not a specific case of "picking on the Indians". Plenty of other groups feel that they have their holy religious rights violated by the U.S. I brought up the Branch Davidians because they claimed the first ammendment allowed them to have sex with children. The courts said "Uh, no it doesn't" and the BATF ended up killing them.

This isn't a defense of David Koresh, mind. It is by wat of pointing out that the first ammendment isn't a cure-all and ignoring it is not something specific to Indian Affairs.

If you or someone decides to worship a pen, then it is up to them. They can worship a pen, nothing in the First Amendment says that a person cannot worship a pen. It says RELIGION, and if a group of people or a single person worships a pen, then it is protected under the F. A.

Fine. So let's say I and my friends decide to worship your backyard and prevent you from mowing the lawn. Or say we decide to worship your house and prevent you from living in it. The F.A. is not that cut and dried, Shelly, and if you deal with law, as you've said above, you should know this.

The main point is, the peak HAS ALWAYS been used as a religious entity. It goes back BEFORE the advent of America, BEFORE the Protestant religion was brought into this country.

This is why they have a shot at an F.A. case. It is unfortunately not enough to insure them a clear-cut victory. I bet my bottom dollar, however, that this issue doesn't go away.

Fine. So let's say I and my friends decide to worship your backyard and prevent you from mowing the lawn. Or say we decide to worship your house and prevent you from living in it. The F.A. is not that cut and dried, Shelly, and if you deal with law, as you've said above, you should know this.

The FA is not cut and dry because people make it so. It is very explicit in my mind, but I will agree and say that the Supreme Court interprets differently from time to time. Nevertheless, they have looked at historical facts which determines the INTENTION.

Someone can worship my house, although it would not stand in court. This has been a private property and the sale of it determines the use. Since I live in a community, I have HOA bylaws which prohibits me from setting up a business or church. We had a case which went to court, some homeowners were told by developers that they could have a daycare in the house. Once the community was turned over to the HOA, they took them to court and had to shut down the daycare, because it was all in the bylaws.

You know your example would give me a lot of headache, but I would call the cops immediately, ask the person to leave, and inform that this is private property. If a property is fenced, has signs or clear demarcation of being PRIVATE, you can't just walk into a backyard. They can turn up and begin the ceremony, but if they continue to worship my house or land, then I can apply Scienter, which means that a person can be guilty if he/she has prior knowledge and continues with an act. That is why you see NO TRESPASSING signs on some property and federal lands.

The Peak case is different. Archeologists has pinpointed the Navajo Indian population in the area by since the 14 century, and it is well known that their language has elements of mongoloid ancestry. Therefore, to compare my backyard with the peak is quite erroneous.


He/she cannot worship on my land, unless he/she has a consent.

The Peak case is different. Archeologists have pinpointed the Navajo Indian population in the area since the 14 century,

The FA is not cut and dry because people make it so. It is very explicit in my mind, but I will agree and say that the Supreme Court interprets differently from time to time.

Yeah, well, that happens when you're dealing with a society based on organic solidarity and tens of millions of different opinions. That is, in fact, precisely why the U.S. system of checks and balances is set up.

Remember: what I am discussing is the legal framework of the situation, not my moral opinion as to whether it's right or wrong. You seem to feel that your moral opinion and the law are precisely one and the same thing. All I am saying is, that's not the case.

Why is this important? Because Brazuca and others here seem to feel that there should be no legal structure AT ALL set up to deal with Indian Affairs as seperate from national affairs.

Were that the case in Peaks situation, need I point out, the tribes would have never even had their day in court.

The Peak case is different. Archeologists has pinpointed the Navajo Indian population in the area by since the 14 century, and it is well known that their language has elements of mongoloid ancestry. Therefore, to compare my backyard with the peak is quite erroneous.

Not at all. The question here is "Do the Navajo have title to the peak?" Period. And if they don't, and the federal government does, then the federal government has to balance out their existing claims with other claims. If the Navajo ceded the peak through treaty rights, which seems to be the case, they no longer have clear title to it and cannot simply attach it via the first ammendment. It is precisely analogous, in this sense, to the house example I gave above.

The only thing that gives them a legal leg to stand on is that it is, in fact, federal land and the federal government is bound to take Indian oppinions into consideration in these sorts of cases. It is not bound - and certainly not bound constitutionally - to respect them above all others.

Look, Shelly, you're preaching to the converted here. You don't need to remind me about the morals of the case. I once spent a summer herding sheeo for an old Navajo gentleman back during the Big Mountain brou-ha-ha. I am totally conversant with the ethics, morals and Native arguments in these sorts of cases.

The problem is, these need to be converted into the Indian law framework in such a way that they'll have a chance of winning in court and, I'm sorry, but prior occupancy based on archeological records has nothing to do with Indian or religious law in this case. It's all going to swing over who has eminent domain on the land. If the Navajo gave it up via legally-recognized treaty, all the prior occupation records in the world don't help them get it back.