NationStates Jolt Archive

Argument: The Most Serene Republic of Satish-Cordoba-Sidhe is most alarmed by the inefficiency and homogenization created by this resolution. The greivances will be written in accordance to the article in which they are listed in the resolution

§1 It is a simple statement of fact that most "indigenous" peoples were NOT the original inhabitants of their nation, they were members of other tribes. In short, what many people call "indigenous" are probably just second-generation conquerors.

§3 The establishment of supporting indigenous peoples as an independent culture is unspeakably detrimental to a national identity and will lead to strife within both military and civilian chambers of life.

§4 Those countries with compulsory military services are hereby contradicted in the Resoluton, under this language those with comnpulsory military service are forced to ignore those of an "indigenous" heritage, thereby not simply cutting short what is sometimes ESSENTIAL manpower.

§6 The fact remains that, while indigenous, the indigenous peoples are inhabiting the lands of a parent nation and it is a most eregious affront to the nation's internal power if it cannot be able to control happenings within its own borders

§7 It would seem that under a time of conflict within one's own borders that NO people have the right to safety, so why should a governement have to give vast expenditures that could be otherwise used in defending one's own territories. Be that as it may however, would it not be safe to assume that under the current Resolution that indigenous peoples would be tasked with ensuring the safety of THEIR OWN people, seeing as they are needed to establish THEIR OWN culture.

§8 There would be too much outside/international influence for them to establish a national identity without a 7skewing, producing not an established identity, but a crude, parody of what was once a glorious past.

§9 The establishment of separate indigenous names would cripple internal affairs within the nation paramout inefficiency of having two names would essentially drive internal commerical, civilian and military operations in the nation almost to a halt

§10 It would seem that under this Resolution that, ideally, the indigenous community would be tasked with educating and raising their own childern but in reality they would be confronted by the joint problems of not just the general dissolution of a national identity but also through the fact that the "indigenous schools" would be inevitably woefully underfunded seeing as the government if discouraged from "intruding" on indigenous affairs.

§11 For those not attending public schools it would seem that the compulsory teaching of indigenous culture would not only demean the indigenous in the sense that they are not worthy enough members of the parent nation to become part of the parent culture but that the madatory teaching of the indigenous cultures would put an unnecessary strain on the efforts of public educators who are hard pressed to teach even the history and culture of the poarent nation. In addition, nowhere in the the Resolution does it call for the fact that in indigenous schools that the compulsory teaching of the culture and history of the parent nation be done. (Despite the fact howver, that indigenous peoples born within the borders of the parent nation would be citizens of the aforementioned parent nation)
The leaders of the three nations of Ashgabar, Diaoxian and Satish-Cordoba-Sidhe drafted this in the hopes that the hopes that wewould be able to draft a new, more practical Indigenous Peoples Act.

Let's take a quick peek over this.

§1 It is a simple statement of fact that most "indigenous" peoples were NOT the original inhabitants of their nation, they were members of other tribes. In short, what many people call "indigenous" are probably just second-generation conquerors.

The definition is simply for the purposes of this resolution. If there remain any of the peoples that inhabited the land before the "second generation conquerors", then they, too, would be known as indigenous.

§3 The establishment of supporting indigenous peoples as an independent culture is unspeakably detrimental to a national identity and will lead to strife within both military and civilian chambers of life.

You may need to develop this argument a bit more. State how or why allowing this subculture will create strife.

§4 Those countries with compulsory military services are hereby contradicted in the Resoluton, under this language those with comnpulsory military service are forced to ignore those of an "indigenous" heritage, thereby not simply cutting short what is sometimes ESSENTIAL manpower.

They aren't forced to ignore them. Under clause 4, they would simply need permission. I agree with your basic sentiment here, but I think I would have looked more towards criminal incarceration of minors. Some kid, well under the age of majority, who kills 35 people in a premeditated and cold-blooded fashion, would be untouchable to the government, who would not be allowed to remove them from the child's family.

§6 The fact remains that, while indigenous, the indigenous peoples are inhabiting the lands of a parent nation and it is a most eregious affront to the nation's internal power if it cannot be able to control happenings within its own borders

The argument is that the indigenous people had the land first, so they should be allowed to keep it. If you were to alter this line to show how it could greatly hinder national development (including industrial, commercial, residential, environmental, etc), it might go over a little smoother.

§7 It would seem that under a time of conflict within one's own borders that NO people have the right to safety, so why should a governement have to give vast expenditures that could be otherwise used in defending one's own territories. Be that as it may however, would it not be safe to assume that under the current Resolution that indigenous peoples would be tasked with ensuring the safety of THEIR OWN people, seeing as they are needed to establish THEIR OWN culture.

It would be safe to assume that the nation would be interested in safeguarding all of their citizens. My question would be why should the indigenous people and their culture be given extra-special attention in this regard.

§8 There would be too much outside/international influence for them to establish a national identity without a 7skewing, producing not an established identity, but a crude, parody of what was once a glorious past.

To be fair, a true national identity should at least attempt to incorporate aspects of the people who were there before them. Allowing that aspect to try to remember their own history shouldn't cause any harm.

§9 The establishment of separate indigenous names would cripple internal affairs within the nation paramout inefficiency of having two names would essentially drive internal commerical, civilian and military operations in the nation almost to a halt

There is nothing that actually says that the national government has to utilize, or even recognize, these alternate names. It must simply allow the indigenous to use them.

§10 It would seem that under this Resolution that, ideally, the indigenous community would be tasked with educating and raising their own childern but in reality they would be confronted by the joint problems of not just the general dissolution of a national identity but also through the fact that the "indigenous schools" would be inevitably woefully underfunded seeing as the government if discouraged from "intruding" on indigenous affairs.

Ideally, you may it right. For a more solid argument against that clause, though, target the fact that this would be granting the indigenous peoples preferential treatment for education over much of the rest of the populace. Granting them the right to all levels and forums of education would mean that charging them tuition or entry fees for private schools would be an infringement of their internationally protected rights and illegal.

§11 For those not attending public schools it would seem that the compulsory teaching of indigenous culture would not only demean the indigenous in the sense that they are not worthy enough members of the parent nation to become part of the parent culture but that the madatory teaching of the indigenous cultures would put an unnecessary strain on the efforts of public educators who are hard pressed to teach even the history and culture of the poarent nation. In addition, nowhere in the the Resolution does it call for the fact that in indigenous schools that the compulsory teaching of the culture and history of the parent nation be done. (Despite the fact howver, that indigenous peoples born within the borders of the parent nation would be citizens of the aforementioned parent nation)

This argument could be pared down and split into two separate arguments. One dealing with the strain placed upon educational systems. The other targetting the hypocritical double standard that everyone must learn their culture, but they don't have to learn anyone else's.

Tyranny of the minority.

I realize that his has already been submitted, and can't be changed at the moment, but perhaps the author would be willing to work on refining their work if this submission fails to reach quorum? There are many here who would be happy to assist, I am sure. There will undoubtably be those who speak against the work, but they will be present during any voting debate as well, so it's best to see what their arguments are early. That way you can prepare yourself to best defend against their attacks.

It also appears to be illegal with blatant branding in the opening argument.

Well there is that, but that's what redrafting is for. Get rid of stuff like that.:p

edit: I love time travel, don't you?

It also appears to be illegal with blatant branding in the opening argument.