NationStates Jolt Archive

Even in countries that claim to respect native rights, countries like Canada, the US, Chile, etc, indigenous people find themselves in a difficult position of trying to hold onto their culture, while being increasingly encouraged/forced to assimilate. Often, treaties that were signed are forgotten, broken, ignored in favour of packing up indigenous people and dumping them somewhere undesireable. Luckily for some, this 'worthless' land is later found to have valuable minerals or other resources...for others, there is no such hope.


This is an interesting article about the Mapuche Indians of South America (Chile and Argentina mostly). What do you think about indigenous struggles to retain autonomy and indigenous culture? What should we do about broken treaties?

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=20&ItemID=8338

The Mapuche ( http://www.mapuche-nation.org/english/main/feature/m_nation.htm) people have a long and proud history of resistance to colonialism. Today, the Chilean state and multinational corporations continue in their long-standing efforts to steal the resources of the Mapuche and to subdue their ongoing struggle.

Vladimir Painemal Morales (Mapuche youth leader): Historically, the Mapuche people have faced different invasions, empire-building invasions. Before the Spanish, in fact, we faced the Inca Empire.

Speaking specifically about the Spanish invasion, we fought a very strong war against them. The Mapuche territory is called the Spanish cemetery, because they suffered huge losses in their wars against us. The Spanish Empire, therefore, realized that they were taking very heavy losses, and they agreed to sign treaties with us, which allowed us to keep our autonomy for centuries. From 1641 to 1881, we were an autonomous nation.
So there is a bit of difference between the Mapuche and the other indigenous peoples of Latin America. So our history of loss of autonomy only goes back 125 years, and we are in the process right now of trying to recuperate our autonomy from the Chilean state.

Ok..no bites so far, how about this (http://www.mapuche-nation.org/english/main/feature/m_nation.htm):

This event, without parallel in the history of the indigenous peoples of South America, was the result of the failure of the Spanish Crown to defeat the Mapuche nation on the battlefield. The signing of the treaty of Killin, in addition to the 28 subsequent treaties signed with the Mapuche nation during two centuries of diplomatic relations, makes the Mapuche stand out in the history of the indigenous peoples of South America. This is because they are the first and only indigenous nation on the continent, whose sovereignty and autonomy was legally recognised.

Between 1860-1885, as a result of a joint military campaign in the Southern Cone, known as the "Pacification of Araucania" in Chile, and the "Conquest of the Desert" in Argentina, around 100,000 Mapuche were cruelly massacred. And what one must also consider is that -in an undeclared war- the Argentine and Chilean states got away with the flagrant violation of international law by not respecting a border frontier recognised by an international power. The subsequent military occupation of Mapuche territory and the deportation of its inhabitants to indigenous reservations are proof of yet another outrage committed against international law.

An internationally recognised treaty was signed, and broken, an autonomous nation was invaded. Should nations have to honour the treaties signed with indigenous groups?