|
|
|
|
|
by arcticbull
1003 days ago
|
|
I guess my question is this. The Spaniards who lived in the non-First-Nations part of California are indigenous to the region too. Exactly as indigenous, IMO, as the First Nations who walked across the land bridge from Russia and set up camp. So why shouldn't they be sovereign and granted the same rights? And what's to say that in 100 years this agreement will not be torn up too, because of, say, it feeling 'forced' due to 'economic conditions'? It's time to stop looking backwards, and start figuring out how to move forwards together as one. We should all be looking after this marine zone together. |
|
This is a much easier perspective to have if you are raised in a society that predominantly thinks of indigenous people as extinct and a thing of the past. It is a much harder perspective to have if you live with the understanding that these issues dont originate in the past but in the modern consequences of historical events.
I too would like a world in which we dont really need to worry about how indigenous peoples are treated. Unfortunately we live in a world where the dominant power structure is all too willing to trample over indigenous rights while certain parts of society appear in droves to defend said trampling.
This may also not be the context of whats being discussed in the article but we are touching on the broader topic of indigenous rights and sovereignty.