1 12 37 https://www.abyayalanews.org/files/original/e1f3e7582aa4b78596b81c6ebde3c4a4.pdf e1fcbd5b1d64b0096421683831ce0c83 PDF Text Text Nicaragua: Colonial History Repeats Itself on the Atlantic Coast of Central America by Amalia Dixon In 1821, the Criollo governors of the Central American countries met in Guatemala to celebrate their political independence. At the same time, they defined the border demarcations of their respective states, overstepping the previous historic demarcations of the ancestral Miskitu, Sumu, and Rama peoples. By arbitrarily deciding where national borders would be, the new states violated our territorial rights. What already existed between our peoples was distorted. It remains impossible to accept these impositions. Part of the southern Caribbean coast of Honduras is Miskitu territory. It was crossed by the Rio Coco, which today serves as a dividing border line between Nicaragua and Honduras. After the Criollo Independence, what remained on the Honduran side was considered disputed territory. It was added to Honduras. A first attempt at relocating all the Miskitus to Nicaragua precipitated the deaths of many Indigenous people, both young and old. Banished from their ancestral land, deprived of their natural medicine, they suffered from scarcity of food, clothing and animals. In short, the migration had a tremendously negative physical and emotional impact. Some decided to return to Honduras, their birth place, traumatized and insecure about their future and way of life. The Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua, representing almost half of the country, was officially incorporated into Nicaragua in 1894. Today this area is inhabited by Miskitus, Sumus, Ramas Garifonas, Afro-Nicaraguans, and mestizos, who came from the Pacific. Until 1894, the English recognized this land as “Mosquito” territory. The English arrived on these coasts during the time of the buccaneers (English pirates that preyed on Spanish trade ships), and they intermarried with the natives. They influenced our culture by giving us English last names, imposing a new religion, and promoting their monarchy. History tells us that the English imposed four kings and eleven chiefs on the Miskitus. History was repeated in 1982 when the Sandinista government in Nicaragua relocated people from the Rio Coco by force, in accordance with a unilateral decision guaranteeing its own political interests. This resulted in an uprising in defense of our ancestral Indigenous rights. As a move towards autonomy, the Congress under the Sandinista government approved the Autonomy Statute Law for the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua in September of 1987. The government of President Violeta Chamorro ratified the Autonomy Law, but did not consider it a priority. As a consequence, its enforcement stagnated. Nevertheless, for the people of the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua, it provided the answer to our struggle for ancestral rights. Soon after in Honduras, Indigenous people began to question their· real identity, since they are of the same origin as those in Nicaragua. This illustrates that the Rio Coco border line makes no sense for us as Indigenous peoples. The Autonomy Law needs to have a serious program of implementation. Buying seeds for agricultural production, either for household consumption or for the market, is a priority for the region. Until now, the presence of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in the communities has partially alleviated their immediate needs. By contrast, economic activities that affect natural resources like agroforestry and concessions for the exploitation of lumber, minerals, and marine life, are "What keeps us together as a people is our spoken language and our social structure in which community practice persists." all in the hands of the central government. Today, mining companies have returned to this area and are repeating the past history of exploitation. The central government and multinational companies have also signed several accords that do not contain positive development plans for Indigenous communities. The presence of these companies means minimum wage work, conditions of economic exploitation, and ecological destruction for Indigenous peoples. The Smnu people, for example, have endured serious environmental impacts. Several rivers like the Bambana are already contaminated. In the end, the Autonomous Government has very little participation and decision-making power in these negotiations. Meanwhile, the subscription of the Nicaraguan government to the new policy of the ESAF (Economic Structural Adjustment Facility) has deepened the economic crisis of the Atlantic Coast peoples. The government subordinates all deals and national resources, like minerals, lumber, and marine life to privatization. In other words, it does not offer alternative strategies for the betterment of our people. Only 20 percent of the taxes that the companies pay are given to the Autonomous Governments of both the southern and northern regions or their administrative expenses. Recently, unemployment there has reached 90 percent. This means profound limitations in agricultural production and little economic income for families. These economic limitations do not allow the autonomous government of the region to plan an appropriate development strategy that could produce qualitative changes. In response to the economic fragmentation of Indigenous peoples caused by the war and the cultural confrontation with the Sandinista government (only since 1990 have our people begun to return to their places of origin from refugee centers located in Honduras), the autonomous leaders of the Atlantic Coast are studying the implementation of a production system that would solidify our traditional economic system as an alternative strategy. It would attempt to alleviate our urgent survival needs, but keep us a unified community for years to come, What keeps us together as a people is our spoken language and our social structure in which our community practice persists. We have lost of our traditional way of dressing (many costumes have disappeared), but our struggle for self-determination is still ongoing. Amalia Dixon is a Miskitu woman from the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua, a board member of the Abya Yala Fund as well as the Miskitu organizations Panapana and FURCA. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Vol. 9, no. 1 (Spring 1995) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Nicaragua: Colonial History Repeats Itself on the Atlantic Coast of Central America Type The nature or genre of the resource Journal Article Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Amalia Dixon Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Spring, 1995 Language A language of the resource English English Zotero Title Nicaragua: Colonial History Repeats Itself on the Atlantic Coast of Central America Item Type Journal Article Author Amalia Dixon Volume 9 Issue 1 Pages 12-13 Publication Title Abya Yala News: Journal of the South and Meso American Indian Rights Center (SAIIC) ISSN 1071-3182 Date Spring, 1995 Language English Abstract Note Indigenous peoples along the Rio Coco that splits the countries of Honduras and Nicaragua have been subjugated to unequal land and resource agreements. Because of the Sandinista government and the Nicaraguan civil war, indigenous peoples in the area are struggling to return to economic sustainability for themselves. Attachment Title Nicaragua_Colonial_History_Repeats_Itself_on_the_Atlantic_Coast_of_Central_America.pdf Attachment URL [No URL] Autonomy borders Development Miskitu Sandinista https://www.abyayalanews.org/files/original/ec4cc645985592b9e90fad951d7b6df7.pdf 34110a21230d399ec01247d56c0a1a6e PDF Text Text Indigenous Fragmentation: Mexico's Domestic and International Borders by Araceli Burguete Cal y Mayor For Indigenous populations, the notion of "borders" is directly associated with a history of occupation and usurpation of their territories. In the case of Mexico, the wars that have accompanied each international border demarcation have not been limited to Indigenous populations in the north or south. The formation of the Mexican Federation was carried out with the same amount of violence and colonization. Each territorial division within the country has been imposed as a "border" for Indigenous peoples. These borders were constructed in an artificial and arbitrary manner, and were superimposed over a cultural and historical geography that dates back thousands of years. Mexico's Southern Border Mayan communities suffer from both domestic and international border impositions. Within Mexico, the five states of the Mexican Federation ( Yucatán, Campeche, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, and Chiapas), almost one hundred municipalities, and over one hundred cooperative farms and communities divide the Maya people. Internationally, the Maya area covers the borders of six nation-states (Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador). The most costly impact of this fragmentation has been on the Mayan global identity, now surviving in multiple linguistic identities (Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Tojolabal, Quiche, Tzutujil, Quekchi, etc.). These linguistic groups have not been able to unify into one single Mayan identity. Nevertheless, there are encouraging signs for unification, even though the Maya people continue to be fragmented. In fact, it appears that those living in Guatemala are undergoing a process of reconstruction of their global identity. Even though this phenomenon is also taking place in Mexico (albeit, in isolated instances), in the majority of the states in which Maya people live, the impact of tourism and industrialization has accelerated the tendency toward “deindianization”. This accelerated "deindianization" is occurring primarily in Tabasco, Campeche, Yucatán, and Quintana Roo. In Chiapas, despite a strong Maya cultural tradition, the Maya global identity is fragmented due to linguistic, municipal, and communal differences. Despite this fragmentation, the states, municipalities and communities which make up the southern border of Mexico constitute a region that has historically been integrated through a common Maya cultural base. Still, the phenomenon of “borders” has had a tremendous impact on the Maya people of Mexico. The Treaty of Limits officially demarcated Mexico's southern border with Guatemala on September 27, 1882. The demarcation with Belize dates to July of 1893, and was defined through negotiations with Great Britain. Neither demarcation process was peaceful. Wars and border conflicts preceded each accord. Even today, some Guatemalans regard Chiapas’ incorporation into Mexico as an act of annexation and theft on the part of Mexico. This feeling is similar to that of Mexicans in regards to the US-occupied Mexican territories of Texas, New Mexico, and California. In reality, this kind of nationalistic rhetoric about stolen land hides the fact that the real victims of border disputes and land annexation have been the Indigenous communities on both the northern and southern borders of the Mexican nation. On September 12, 1824,Chiapas was officially annexed into Mexico through a plebiscite. A total "Mayan communities suffer from both domestic and international border impositions. Within Mexico, five states of the Mexican Federation (Yucatán, Campeche, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, and Chiapas), almost one hundred municipalities, and over one hundred cooperative farms and communities divide the Maya people." number of almost 100,000 citizens voted to include Chiapas into the Mexican Federation. However, not all of those who lived in Chiapas had the opportunity to vote on such a crucial issue. In 1824, only those who could read or write and those who could prove that they were "honorable" citizens (citizens with wealth and of mestizo or criollo ancestry) were allowed to vote. The opinion and collective perception of territory of the Maya, Quiche,Tzotzil, Tzeltal, Tojolabal, Quekchl,and Marne peoples that lived in Chiapas was never taken into consideration. A Border in Conflict The Maya people's response to the fragmentation of their culture has never been passive. Hundreds of rebellions have demonstrated the Maya communities' nonconformity with their reality as a divided people. The Maya rebellion that has lasted for more than twenty years in Guatemala and the recent Maya uprising in Chiapas are modem examples of Maya resistance against the borders and what these borders signify for them: oppression and the loss of self-determination. The concept of "border" in southern Mexico became more tangible as a result of internal conflicts in Central America. Thousands of political refugees crossed Mexico's border. Many of them were Maya people who were escaping repression at the hands of the Guatemalan authorities. These people have now settled in the municipalities adjacent to the border. According to official government sources, there are almost 40 thousand Guatemalan refugees along Mexico's southern border, with half of them in the state of Chiapas. Many believe that the actual number of political refugees who have settled in the south of Mexico is higher. As is well known, not all refugees were accounted for in these statistics. Estimates indicate that the number of Guatemalan refugees in Mexico is at least twice that of the official count. The presence of refugees and the border's proximity to the Guatemalan guerrillas push Mexico's government to increase the presence of police and soldiers to guard the borders. Because of this, the one million Indigenous people of Chiapas and other border states have suffered assaults on their liberties, and all possibilities for democracy were halted. The authorities of Chiapas have consistently defied existing federal laws by allowing certain individuals to break them with impunity. In the last twenty years, the Maya who live along the southern border of Mexico have lived in a virtual state of war. They have struggled to achieve democracy via peaceful means. However, the authorities have responded 'with acts of violence and terrorism, similar to those experienced in "low-intensity" conflict areas. Violation of Indigenous People's human rights and impunity for the violators has also been a characteristic of the past twenty years. The violence and repression against the Mayas of Mexico's southern border has no precedence in the rest of the country. Yet, this kind of violence is not circumstantial. It is reproduced to the same magnitude in other border areas. Araceli Burguete is a native of Chiapas, sociologist, and technical and research coordinator for the Independent Indian People’s Front (FIPI) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Vol. 9, no. 1 (Spring 1995) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Indigenous Fragmentation: Mexico's Domestic and International Borders Type The nature or genre of the resource Journal Article Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Araceli Burguete Cal y Mayor Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Spring, 1995 Language A language of the resource English English Zotero Title Indigenous Fragmentation: Mexico's Domestic and International Borders Item Type Journal Article Author Araceli Burguete Cal y Mayor Volume 9 Issue 1 Pages 8-9 Publication Title Abya Yala News: Journal of the South and Meso American Indian Rights Center (SAIIC) ISSN 1071-3182 Date Spring, 1995 Language English Abstract Note Territorial divisions within Mexico and Central America were constructed in an artificial manner, dividing and isolating indigenous peoples. This led to a division of Mayan peoples with Chiapas facing conflicts within its own territory and along its borders within Mexico and along Guatemala. Attachment Title Indigenous_Fragmentation_Mexico's_Domestic_and_International_Borders.pdf Attachment URL [No URL] borders Chiapas fragmentation Maya Treaty of Limits https://www.abyayalanews.org/files/original/bf258061e055e15245aaf6de366cdba7.pdf 3dbe01b9011d5fa1d98c3c12765939cd PDF Text Text CICA: A Pan-Indigenous Organization in Central America by Atencio Lopez (Kuna) On July 21, 1995, in the city of Guatemala, the Indigenous Council of Central America (CICA) was founded, which integrates indigenous representatives from Guatemal to Panama, including Belize. The initiative to found the Council was born during a reunion in Panama held in June, 1994. There, attendants agreed on the urgent necessity for Indigenous peoples in Central America to coordinate their efforts on a regional level to defend their rights in the face of the political and economic structural changes stemming from the democratization process. The founding of CICA is particularly important as it occurs during a time when dialogue and pacification follow the civil wars that have impoverished our countries and impacted most strongly in Indigenous communities. CICA will also facilitate the Regional Program for the Support of Indigenous Peoples in Central America (PAPICA) organized with the European Community which makes available approximately 8 million dollars. CICA staff includes : Leopoldo Tzian (Maya-Guatemala), President; Mauricio Castro (Zicaque-Honduras), General Secretary; William Borregon (Embera-Panama), Treasurer. For more information, contact: CICA, in care of COMG, 2a. Calle 3.40, Zona 3, Chimaltenago, Chimalt. Guatemale. Tel/Fax: 5029392709 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Vol. 9, no. 1 (Spring 1995) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource CICA: A Pan-Indigenous Organization in Central America Type The nature or genre of the resource Journal Article Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Atencio López (Kuna) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Spring, 1995 Language A language of the resource English English Zotero Title CICA: A Pan-Indigenous Organization in Central America Item Type Journal Article Author Atencio López (Kuna) Volume 9 Issue 1 Pages 19 Publication Title Abya Yala News: Journal of the South and Meso American Indian Rights Center (SAIIC) ISSN 1071-3182 Date Spring, 1995 Language English Abstract Note On July 21, 1995, the Indigenous Council of Central America (CICA) was founded, which integrates indigenous representatives from Guatemala to Panama, including Belize. Attachment Title CICA_A_Pan-Indigenous_Organization_in_Central_America.pdf Attachment URL [No URL] CICA Indigenous Council of Central America self-determination Territory https://www.abyayalanews.org/files/original/360b13882b74b7028d3cf8cea3dcbba3.pdf 5cea7c5e0af964c594f5ffe1283dc33e PDF Text Text State Frontiers and Indian Nations: Commentary on Implications for the Mapuche and Indigenous Peoples by Aucan Huillcaman Paillama In cultures around the world, formal law often stands in antithesis to justice and rights. The Council of the Indies, an administrative structure that the Spanish colonial government imposed on what they deemed the "New World," legalized anoppressive system toward us as Indigenous peoples. Historically, oppressive laws which states imposed by force suppressed persistent Indigenous uprisings in defense of our life, rights, and freedom. Today, many claim that times have changed. However, the formation of the current state has maintained the oppression initiated by these early colonial institutions. Not only were states established ignoring existing Indigenous territories, but state institutions have not been able to administer justice among Indigenous peoples. It was not through carelessness or ignorance that the institutionalization of Spanish colonial legal systems clashed with Indigenous cultures. Many times they have made us believe, incorrectly, that through courts we can obtain justice. At other times we attempted to improve our position by submitting amendments to modify the state constitution. Although today the Chilean state has approved laws relating to Indigenous peoples, these have undermined Indigenous systems of justice. While we are claiming our rights, justice, dignity and freedom, the ideology of colonialism continues to distort our reality as Indigenous peoples. Legal language continues to define us as "ethnic minorities" without defining the nature of our· ethnic character. This ignorance reduces us to simple statistics. The state continues to deny our inalienable right to self-definition. This is a right that we as Indigenous peoples have never yielded. We have not given anyone the right to define who we are. An administrative division of lands carried out during the colonial period forms the basis of many of the current state borders. States, in turn, are founded through force and violence. In our perspective, we Indigenous peoples, as the real Nations, consider the founding of the nation-state as a perpetuation of our oppression. The Criollo (the colonial elite descended from the Spanish conquistadors) independence did not mean independence for us as Indigenous peoples. The colonial borders that were transferred to independent state boundaries are still only inventions, walls that separate Indigenous peoples. They are ideological, legal, political, and institutional walls. It is commonly said that "the walls have fallen in the modern world," and that we are quickly advancing to an integrated, developed, modem existence. Nevertheless, how do we define the walls that divide, for example, the Aymara Nation into Bolivians, Peruvians, Chileans, and Argentinians? The Mapuche Nation also has its own wall. Today, the Chilean and Argentinian border divides us. Violence mars the history of the fragmentation of the Mapuche people. The Spaniards, upon entering Wallmapuche (Mapuche territory), imposed their will, by force. Alonso de Ercilla, author of The Araucanian, describes the battles fought by the Mapuche in defense of their lives, dignity, freedom, and rights. Based in part on this information, the Spanish kings believed that there had been a war in Mapuche lands. Charles V made decisions based on the supposed War of Arauco, the name that the Spaniards gave to our Wallmapuche. In 1641, before the Mapuche uprisings, limited Spanish military capacity forced the Spaniards to meet with the Mapuche. They established the first Parliament of Quillem on January 6, 1641. At this meeting they fixed the Mapuche territorial border at the Bio-Bio River to the south. Out territory then comprised eleven million hectares of land. The Parliament of Quillem also recognized our absolute independence in the interior of our territory. The Mapuche were forced to accept the introduction of missionaries into our territories during the summers. In addition, in colonizers requested the return of the Spaniards captured by the Mapuche. The Mapuche demanded that the Spaniards retreat from Los Confines, which today is the city of Angol. Each time the Spaniards, in violation of the Treaty of Quillem, were militarily able to penetrate Mapuche territory, they did. After the Mapuches expelled them, they agreed to sign new treaties to delineate borders and support the political independence of the Mapuche people. At the time of Chilean Creole Independence (1810), the Mapuche often supported the Spanish Creoles. During that period of our history, it was inconceivable that the Mapuches not ally with the independence process from Spain. Finally, the Chileans militarily invaded the Mapuche territory. This did not happen, however, until 1881; the Mapuche maintained their independence 71 years after the formation of the Argentinian and Chilean states. To achieve the submission of the Mapuche, the two states had to coordinate their military forces. In Argentina the military campaign was called the “Conquest of the Desert” (“desert” because whites did not live there), while in Chile it was called the “Pacification of the Araucania” (or, the”Pacification of the Savages”). Both actions were nothing short of the execution of state-sponsored genocide, sanctioned by their respective legal systems. In 1883, Chile and Argentina permanently demarcated their state borders. In the logic of state structures, we Mapuches who remained under the jurisdiction of the Chilean state became Chileans. Those who remained under dominance of the Argentinian state became Argentinians. The unilateral actions of states are well known, and similar to the Papal Bull Inter Caetare proclaimed by Pope Alexander VI when he divided Indian territories between the kingdoms of Portugal and Castilla in 1532. In 1990, the Mapuche organizations existing under Chilean and Argentinian state jurisdiction began a process of decolonization. To work toward this goal, we decided to revive the emblem of the Mapuche Nation, This action provoked reactions in many different socio political sectors. Our traditional Mapuche authorities, however, were firm and clear. In their words, the “flag is not meant to deny anything to anyone, nor to impose on anyone, nor to invade other people. Rather it is a flag which reaffirms our identity as a distinct culture. We accept that the Spanish and Chilean people exist, in the same way that we the Mapuche exist. Because of this we have legitimate rights to manifest our culture, our reality. The Mapuche national flag is not a conquering symbol like the flag of Napoleon Bonaparte. To the contrary it is a manifestation of our existence within human diversity, and therefore is fully legitimate and valid.” One Lonko (a traditional Mapuche leader) said, “Now we have the following alternatives: To follow the flags of the state and of political parties, or the flag of the Mapuche Nation.” The most powerful tool that we Indigenous peoples have is that of consent. We have not resigned our fundamental rights. The day Indigenous peoples accept the concept of the state as a Nation will be the day we have given up our fundamental rights. We have consented to the state on one level when we participate in their elections. To participate in that process is equivalent to the acceptance of a system that does not recognize us. It is also an ideological contradiction of our peoples, even if, frequently, it is the efforts of some determined leaders who push us in that direction. Consent is our only tool for achieving change. States can continue to make laws and impose them; these will be invalid, for we Indigenous peoples have not expressed our willingness to conform. What states seek through their new colonialism is to involve us: They have designated “participation through conference,” as if the only right that we have is to be consulted. However, our true Indian liberation will begin when we assume our condition of immemorial identity, when we abandon the identities of the national states that dilute and disavow us. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Vol. 9, no. 1 (Spring 1995) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource State Frontiers and Indian Nations: Commentary on Implications for the Mapuche and Indigenous Peoples Type The nature or genre of the resource Journal Article Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Aucan Huillcamán Paillama Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Spring, 1995 Language A language of the resource English English Zotero Title State Frontiers and Indian Nations: Commentary on Implications for the Mapuche and Indigenous Peoples Item Type Journal Article Author Aucan Huillcamán Paillama Volume 9 Issue 1 Pages 14-15. Publication Title Abya Yala News: Journal of the South and Meso American Indian Rights Center (SAIIC) ISSN 1071-3182 Date Spring, 1995 Language English Abstract Note Indigenous peoples consider the colonial and state borders as artificial barriers to their indigenous nations. The best way to maintain unity to fight state oppression is reinforce the right of consent by indigenous peoples. Attachment Title State_Frontiers_and_Indian_Nations.pdf Attachment URL [No URL] Argentina Chile Consent Mapuche https://www.abyayalanews.org/files/original/c3d63f2606e091f42c91992a7079ebc4.pdf 8915718d621ebb10efd9fbd1ced67931 PDF Text Text Indigenous Assembly Grapples with Suicides Suicides among the Guarani Kaiowa, which have been on the rise for the past ten years, were the main subject discussed this past May at an Assembly of the Aty Guassu Organizzation in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil, he Assembly brought together shamans, Indian leaders and chiefs from 22 villages to try to learn why 22 Indians have committed suicide this year. The suicide rate among tghe Guarani Koaiowa is unusually high. The World Health Organization considers that an estimate of over one case in 10,000 per year is abnormal. According to FUNAI, 161 suicides, most of which were committed by young Indians, were registered among the Guarani Kaiowa from 1985 through May of this year. Extreme poverty, the gradual loss of traditional religious practices, and, above all, the lack of land are factors directly linked to the suicides, Araldo Veron, who also once attempted suicide, spoke on these factors at the Assembly. The villages of Dourados, with 8,900 Indians squeezed in 3,530 hectares of land, and Caarapor, with 2,346 Indians, have been the most affected. Information courtesy of CIMI - Conselho Indigenista Missionario Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Vol. 9, no. 1 (Spring 1995) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Indigenous Assembly Grapples with Suicides Type The nature or genre of the resource Journal Article Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource CIMI (Conselho Indigenista Misionário Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Spring, 1995 Language A language of the resource English English Zotero Title Indigenous Assembly Grapples with Suicides Item Type Journal Article Author CIMI (Conselho Indigenista Misionário Volume 9 Issue 1 Pages 5 Publication Title Abya Yala News: Journal of the South and Meso American Indian Rights Center (SAIIC) ISSN 1071-3182 Date Spring, 1995 Language English Abstract Note Suicides among the Guarani Kaiowa, which have been on the rise of the past ten years, were the main subject discussed at an assembly of the Aty Guassu Organization in Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. Attachment Title Indigenous_Assembly_Grapples_with_Suicides.pdf Attachment URL [No URL] Guarani Guarani Kaiowa poverty suicide https://www.abyayalanews.org/files/original/88c577a223ab07350d2ceb05c7dc95e1.pdf 8d81bbc709ea048625cb0f3b08161afa PDF Text Text Guajajara Murdered in Brazil Manuel Mendes, a Guajajara Indian, was killed following a land invasion in the state of Maranhao, Brazil. Mendes' assassin, Jaime Jardim, was an invader of the Krikati Indian territory, located in the Brazilian state of Maranhao. According to his daughter; Manuel Mendes had been receiving death threats for some time. Tension had been building in that area since a group of invaders prevented a team of technicians from demarcating the Krikati territory. The minister of Justice issued a directive ordering the Krikati territory to be demarcated in July of 1992. However, because of pressure from local politicians, land invaders and the family of ex-president Jose Samey, the demarcation has been interrupted. Meanwhile, Krikati land continues to be illegally occupied. Invaders have settled on about twenty farms and in a Krikati village. In December of last year, when technicians were once again sent to demarcate the area, invaders burned the entrance bridges and blocked access to the area. Information supplied by CIMI-Conselho Indigenista Missionario (Indian Missionary Council) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Vol. 9, no. 1 (Spring 1995) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Guajajara Murdered in Brazil Type The nature or genre of the resource Journal Article Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conselho Indigenista Missionario (CIMI) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Spring, 1995 Language A language of the resource English English Zotero Title Guajajara Murdered in Brazil Item Type Journal Article Author Conselho Indigenista Missionario (CIMI) Volume 9 Issue 1 Pages 4 Publication Title Abya Yala News: Journal of the South and Meso American Indian Rights Center (SAIIC) ISSN 1071-3182 Date Spring, 1995 Language English Abstract Note Manuel Mendes, a Guajajara Indian, was killed among growing tensions between invaders into Krikati Indian territory and the Indian population living there. Attachment Title Guajajara_Murdered_in_Brazil.pdf Attachment URL [No URL] demarcation Guajajara invaders Krikati https://www.abyayalanews.org/files/original/c6adc0da3852cb1a714d494b4d4d2c4f.pdf ee2a9af9aba62ea82302ccd08873924f PDF Text Text INTERNAT I ONAL URNG-Government Dialogue: Indians Excluded Once Again On March 31, Guatemala's govemment and the leftist umbrella guerrilla group National Guatemalan Revolutionary Union (Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca, URNG) signed an accord to protect the rights of the Maya Indian people. As we reported in the last issue ofAbya Yala News (see Estuardo Zapeta, "Guatemala Peace Talks: Are Maya Rights Negotiable~vol. 8, no. 4h these peace talks have excluded the Maya people who make up a majority of Guatemala's population. In the recently-signed pact, the govemment promised to promote constitutional reforms to recognize the Maya Indians, promote their rights, end racial discrimination and sexual harassment, respect traditional dress and languages, and promote bilingual education. Maya organizations greeted the pact as a cautious first step and stated that the effect that it would have on their sttussle to achieve their demands remained to be seen. The following statement is from the League of Organizations of the Maya People of Guatemala (Coordinaci6n de Organizaciones del Pueblo Maya de Guatemala, COPMAGUA, also l<r1<>'NTl by its Maya acronym SAJB'ICHIL) on these negotiations. COPMAGUA Statement on Peace Negotiations he se<:ond Grand Assembly of SAJB'ICHIL, the League of Organizations of the Maya People of Guatemala (COPMAGUA), in view of the agreement "Identity and Rights of Indigenous People" which the Republic of Guatemala and the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Union (URNG) signed on March 31, 1995, in Mexico City, having been asked to analyze the peace negotiations; Concludes That: 1) This accord does not necessarily fulfill all of our aspirations and demands, but it is the minimal product of five hundred years of resistance, three decades of an internal armed conflict, and above all the struggle of the Maya people together with the suppott of the civilian population. It is one of the tools to begin the eradication of the social inj ustice, discrimination, oppression and colonialism that we s uffer today. 2) This Agreement is a minimal but significant step to strengthen the hope of the Maya people to end the marginalization, oppression, discrimination, dominance, exploitation and colonialism that we suffer. 3) The Maya people will continue to work and struggle to achieve all of our rights and demands. 4) The contents of the Agreement will only be effective if all parties demonstrate the political willingness to comply with the terms of the agreement, ' vith the full participation of the Maya people. 5) The leagues and organizations present at the sigrting of the agreement endow SAJB'ICHIL \vith the power to be the representative and voice of the Maya T Vol. 9 No.1 people to all of the parties involved (the government, the army, and the URNG) to oversee the implementation and verification of the tem1s of the Agreement, as well as \vith international groups. 6) We recogni1-e that the Agreement was in part made possible by the support of the United Nations as part of its Global Peace Process, as well as by the support of the group of friendly countries. It Commits Itself To: 1) Disseminate fully the agreement, "Identity and Rights of the Indigenous Communities" to communi· ties, villages and hamlets in the Maya hmguages through all of the possible means of communication. 2) Make all of the Maya organizations as well as the civilian population not only aware of the agreement, but also to involve them in its application and compliance. 3) Conduct consultations with its base organizations and other Maya organizations for the implementation of the necessary mechanisms and the compliance of the agreement by those who signed it. Decides To: Conduct its third Grand Assembly on B'ELEJE' NO'J (May 2, 1995) 'vith the obje<:tive of making de<:isions regarding how to c.r eate work commissions to boost the agreement, as well as its functions and tasks. '(1t B'OKO', WAQI' Q'ANIU ' Chimaltenango, April3, 1995 33 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Vol. 9, no. 1 (Spring 1995) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource URNG-Government Dialogue: Indians Excluded Once Again Type The nature or genre of the resource Journal Article Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource COPMAGA Statement on Peace Negotiations Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Spring, 1995 Language A language of the resource English English Zotero Title URNG-Government Dialogue: Indians Excluded Once Again Item Type Journal Article Author COPMAGA Statement on Peace Negotiations Volume 9 Issue 1 Pages 33 Publication Title Abya Yala News: Journal of the South and Meso American Indian Rights Center (SAIIC) ISSN 1071-3182 Date Spring, 1995 Language English Abstract Note Guatemala's government and the leftist guerilla group National Guatemalan Revolutionary Union (Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca, URNG) signed an accord to protect the rights of the Maya Indian people. However, Mayans were excluded from these negotiations. Attachment Title URNG-Government_Dialogue_Indians_Excluded_Once_Again.pdf Attachment URL [No URL] COPMAGUA international League of Organizations of the Maya people of Guatemala peace https://www.abyayalanews.org/files/original/100e87116b59abf8b7723e3720d6d673.pdf b6757a4db92def58fcff5f5ac40b7c51 PDF Text Text Once Divided: Indigenous Peoples in the US and Mexico Unite Across the Border based on article by Carolina de Ia Pefia and Eugenio Bermejillo, Ojarasca, Mexico In June of 1994, the First Indigenous US/Mexico Border Auka Maj Kuar Kuar Encounter took place in Tecate, Baja California. Unlike similar conferences, attendance was not limited to tribal leaders. Members of all ranks represented their communities at the Encounter. These communities included those associated with UECI (The Common Land and Indigenous Communities of Baja California Union), Peace and Dignity, and The Native Cultures of B.C. Institute. However, tribal leaders were by no means absent. Leaders from communities across Mexico, Baja California, and the US were present. The Encounter’'s purpose was to initiate communication among Indigenous peoples in Mexico and the United States. Several issues were discussed. One of the most important being the difficult situation faced by bi-national Indigenous communities (communities that are divided by the US/Mexico border). These discussions resulted in the drafting of a declaration concerning this problem that was later sent to bi-national Indigenous communities for approval. Part of the declaration reads as follows: "Our rights have been limited by the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treatise of 1848, which does not recognize the historical and natural rights of freedom of movement within our Indigenous communities, linked both linguistically and culturally, on either side of the border." The signers of the declaration demanded the right to cross freely for ceremonial and religious purposes,advocated the toppling of existing barriers in order that members of Indigenous communities may visit one another and rekindle relationships with family members separated by the border, and requested access to natural resources necessary for cultural or medicinal purposes and for the construction of houses. Members of the Hia-ced O'odham, Yaqui, Kumiai, Kiliwa, Pa-ipai, Cochimi, Kikapu, Mono, and Cucapa communities signed the declaration. In 1989, at the Border Tribes Summit, similar issues were raised. Representatives from twenty Indigenous communities from the Sonora/Arizona border and from the Creek, Cree, Cherokee, Ojibwa, Mohawk, and other communities separated by the US/Canada border were present. One of the main topics of discussion was the declaration fi-om the O'odbam Nation calling for the restitution of its territory in Mexico, reduced from 4,800 to 20 square kilometers in the span of two centuries due to cattle ranchers’ invasions from both the US and Mexico. In July of that same year.; the O'odbam Nation had asked the United Nations Subcommittee for Indigenous Rights to intervene in this eight year territorial conflict that is still unresolved. The importance that Vine Deloria bestowed upon the Summit and the declaration from the O'odham Nation is true for all of the Indigenous communities that are separated by national borders: "The fact that the O'odhams present themselves as one nation, forces the governments of both Mexico and the US to resolve the conflict through negotiations among equals and prohibits them from just turning the matter over to the courts." The O'odham Nation did not actively participate at the Encounter in Tecate, which may help to explain the lack of continuity between this recent Encounter and the 1989 Summit. However, an Indigenous group that is associated with the O'odhams - the Hia-ced O'odhams - was present. The Hia-ced O'odhams have been struggling since the beginning of the 1980s to be recognized as a community. As a result of the Hia-ced O'odhams' rejection of several mining projects, it became increasingly clear that they continued to exist as a group with the necessary strength to rejoin the O'odham Nation. But the Union Congress, at first, rejected an initiative to recognize the Hia-ceds as part of the O'odham Nation due to a lack of information regarding the number of people in this group and location of their communities. Marleen Vazquez said that faced with this problem, "a small group of people went out to visit houses in the Hia-ced communities and took down names of people, genealogies, photos, and even visited cemeteries. We sent all of the information we received to the O'odham Nation, and they accepted us. In 1984, 250 of us became members of the tribe. Since then, 1,200 of us have been inscribed, and there are 300 individuals whose acceptance is pending. The most difficult cases are found in Mexico. The Mexican O'odhams can't be legally inscribed in the tribe, until we have enough resources to complete the investigation as required." Another group also separated by the US/Mexico border; the Kikapu, presented its list of problems at the Encounter and drafted a series of needs and demands. The Kikapu descended from the Algonquins, and after seven successive migrations, finally settled partly in Oklahoma and partly in Muzquiz, Coahuila. Since 1947, they have enjoyed the right of free movement across the US/Mexico border. During the summers, some Kikapu work on farms in Oklahoma and return to Mexico in the winter. Because they are a migrating culture, they have called for the simplification of customs procedures so that needed resources can reach the Kikapu in Mexico. These resources include tule acuatico, a basic material used in the construction of homes and in the making of crafts and automobiles. The importation of resources into Mexico requires fiscal registrations and credit cards, both of which they do not have. “The Constitutional Reform, which holds the State responsible for the preservation of Indigenous cultures, is not carried out here," declared Jose Ovalle, an anthropologist that was invited to the Encounter by the Kikapu. Ovalle spoke at the Encounter about the newly implemented customs procedures at the US/Mexico border that make it neady impossible for the Kikapu on either side of the border to communicate. For further information, see Ojarasca #38-39, (November-December 1994). AUKA MAl KUAR KUAR was the First Historical Encounter of Indigenous Peoples of Baja California and the United States border states of New Mexico and Arizona. At this encounter, Indigenous peoples divided by nation-state borders attempted to rebuild their sense of unity by exchanging views and analyzing their current position regarding the ongoing process of organizing on a regional/eve/. What follows is a brief report on this encounter. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Vol. 9, no. 1 (Spring 1995) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Once Divided: Indigenous Peoples in the US and Mexico Unite Across the Border Type The nature or genre of the resource Journal Article Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Carolina de la Peña Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Eugenio Bermejillo Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Spring, 1995 Language A language of the resource English English Zotero Title Once Divided: Indigenous Peoples in the US and Mexico Unite Across the Border Item Type Journal Article Contributor Carolina de la Peña Author Eugenio Bermejillo Volume 9 Issue 1 Pages 10-11 Publication Title Abya Yala News: Journal of the South and Meso American Indian Rights Center (SAIIC) ISSN 1071-3182 Date Spring, 1995 Language English Abstract Note AUKA MAH KUAR KUAR was the first historical encounter of indigenous peoples of Baja California and the United States border states of New Mexico and Arizona. At this encounter, indigenous peoples divided by nation-state borders attempted to rebuild their sense of unity by exchanging views and analyzing their current position regarding the ongoing process of organizing on a regional level. Attachment Title Once_Divided_Indigenous_People_in_the_US_and_Mexico.pdf Attachment URL [No URL] borders Deloria Vine Kikapú O'Odham The Common Land and Indigenous Communities of Baja California Union https://www.abyayalanews.org/files/original/3cb9b845fa1a68d63cb7e1337ed01a0b.pdf f3e64718574e0367a664e65934c89fb9 PDF Text Text A Nineteenth-Century War in the Amazon: Indigenous Communities Caught in the Ecuador/ Peru Border Dispute by Fernando Rivera Indigenous people who live in the disputed area between Ecuador and Peru have faced severe hardship and danger during the latest conflict which erupted in January of this year. Forced to fight and caught in wars not of their own design, Indigenous communities in both Ecuador and Peru endured the death of some of their people in battle, the threat of mass starvation, illnesses, and the destruction of their environment. The recent fighting is an unfortunate continuation of border disputes which have divided the two countries since the wars of independence and is another example of the internal colonialism to which Indigenous peoples are subjected. Each country has based its territorial rights on different treatises and international legal concepts. Each has had its own reasons for waging war. Both Ecuador and Peru, however, have ignored the impact that such land disputes have had on the Indigenous peoples who live along their borders. With every war and every treatise, neither Ecuador nor Peru has been as negatively affected as these Indigenous communities. The territorial dispute between Ecuador and Peru has been one of the longest and most complicated land disputes on the continent. During colonial times, first the Viceroyalty of Peru and later the Viceroyalty of Gran Colombia administered the Amazonian provinces. In 1829, after gaining independence, Peru and Gran Colombia signed an agreement in which they did not establish borders, but agreed to respect the former colonial divisions. Since the borders in that region were never clearly defined, their demarcation became a topic of constant debate. In 1941 a war broke out between Ecuador and Peru which ended with the signing of the Río de Janeiro Protocol which sought to define the border between the two countries. In 1950, however, Ecuador declared the Protocol null and void because of what it believed to be technical differences in demarcating 78 kilometers of land along the Condor Cordillera. In 1981, another war broke out between the two countries. Some analysts believe that the ruling government of Ecuador began that war as a way to distract attention away from its economic problems. Similarly, some analysts believe that President Fujimori may have begun the current war in order to assure his re-election. Whatever the motive, it is the Indigenous communities along the Ecuador/Peru border that are the most affected when the two countries decide to go into battle. First, both countries force Indians to fight in the military. This makes neighboring communities along the border and binational communities (communities divided by the border) fight among each other. Much has been said recently about intra-ethnic wars all around the world, but little attention has been paid to the fact that Indian peoples in Ecuador and Peru have been forced to kill each other. Many of these people belong to the same ethnic or cultural groups, as in the case of the Shuar, Achuar, Aguaruna, Huambiza and Quichua Indians. Second, the toll of the war is felt primarily in Indigenous communities along the border where most of the fighting occurs. Hundreds of families have been displaced by the destruction of their homes, harvests, and cattle. Bombings occur regularly, and deadly diseases are spreading rapidly. "Indigenous communities have never had borders," says Mino Eusebio Castro, vice-president of AIDESEP (Indigenous Association for the Development of the Peruvian Amazon). "What is occurring is that there is a conflicting interests between two political groups striving for economic control. We have never been consulted over the creation of borders, yet who do they use when there is a conflict of this type? Who provides the food? Who gets recruited to fight on the front lines? Who gets affected by protecting the borders? It is the Indigenous people!" Luis Macas, president of CONAIE (Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador) reported that the war has directly affected 21 of the 400 Shuar centers (or communities) in the Ecuadorian Amazon because of their proximity to the border. Also, among the 30 Achuar centers, the centers closest to the border have been greatly affected. Furthermore, out of the 25 Quichua communities on both sides of the border (10 in Ecuador and 15 in Peru), the number of affected families reaches 800. Finally, other smaller bordering communities also suffer from the war. These include the Siona, Secoya, Cofan, and the Shiwiar communities. The total number of indians in Ecuador alone affected by this war reaches 20,000. If the conflict continues, Macas predicts the loss of more Indigenous lives, homes, and livelihoods. A recent article in the Quito daily El Comercio describes the social and economic effect of the war. According to the report, 180 Indigenous communities and approximately 3,000 families "are faced with a social, economic, and psychological crisis because there crops and animals have disappeared and their understanding of their own territory has been changed" since the fighting began. "Life is not the same. Tranquility has not returned to the selva since the ceasefire," said Luis Yampies, a leader of the Shuar community. "Many communities cannot return to their lands because they are mined. That was a defense strategy by the Ecuadorian military, but we are affected." In formal and informal declarations, Indigenous groups have denounced the violence and demanded that the governments of Ecuador and Peru stop the war. COICA (The Coordinating Body for the Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin), an umbrella group that represents Indigenous organizations from the eight nation-states with territorial claims in the Amazon Basin, proposed the creation of a bi-national park which would demilitarize the conflict zone and guarantee peace for years to come. The proposal was born out of an impending need to protect the environment and the desire to re-integrate the Shuar and Achuar communities in Ecuador with their cultural counterparts in Peru- the Aguaruna and the Huambiza Indians. Another-perhaps more radical-declaration signed by members of both CONAlE and CONFENIAE (Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon), demands, among other things, that Ecuador be recognized as a "multinational, multicultural and multilingual country" (see sidebar (page 7) for extracts from the declaration) to guarantee the integrity and respect for Indigenous peoples. With all of these declarations, Indigenous leaders reiterate the importance that Indigenous participation should have in peace talks. They rightly point out that a meaningful and lasting peace will not be reached as long as the Indigenous peoples who live in the disputed territories continue to be ignored. Still, the governments of Ecuador and Peru are not listening. The government of Peru, for example, has proposed a plan to strengthen its borders by giving away Indigenous land to colonizers from different areas of the country. But peace will not come through the further colonization of Indigenous people. On the contrary, peace will only be achieved when Indigenous land is rightly and justly protected, and the Indigenous way of life secured. A joint declaration from AIDESEP and CONFENIAE states: "Nowadays, it is in vogue to speak of integration. However; we have lived for thousands of years in peaceful communion with our Indigenous neighbors on both sides of the border. Furthermore, borders that the white people created have divided communities like the Shuar, Quichua and Cofan. But we continue to feel as though we were part of one Indian continental nation: the ancient Abya Yala." Additional declarations and information from Indigenous organizations on this border conflict are in SAlIC's PeaceNet conference saiic.indio as well as on the Internet at: http:IIulwnaix.cc.ulwns.edu/-marc/geography/latinam/ecuador/border_main.html. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Vol. 9, no. 1 (Spring 1995) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A Nineteenth-Century War in the Amazon: Indigenous Communities Caught in the Ecuador/Peru Border Dispute Type The nature or genre of the resource Journal Article Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Fernando Rivera Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Spring 1995 Language A language of the resource English English Zotero Title A Nineteenth-Century War in the Amazon: Indigenous Communities Caught in the Ecuador/Peru Border Dispute Item Type Journal Article Author Fernando Rivera Volume 9 Issue 1 Pages 6-7, 38 Publication Title Abya Yala News: Journal of the South and Meso American Indian Rights Center (SAIIC) ISSN 1071-3182 Date Spring, 1995 Language English Abstract Note Conflict between the Ecuadorian and Peruvian border forced indigenous peoples within the disputed territory to fight for opposing sides. Attachment Title A_Nineteenth-Century_War_in_the_Amazon.pdf Attachment URL [No URL] AIDESEP Amazon binational communities borders https://www.abyayalanews.org/files/original/84de3b5d537a2b2b2842c88bc8cfd584.pdf 77ef859882089bfdee00d5ace4c3badf PDF Text Text Bill to Grant Ngobe-Bugle Autonomy in Panama Due to strong opposition by the Ngobe-Bugle community of Panama to the mining of their lands, the government has drawn up a bill that will grant the community autonomy over its territory. The Ngobe-Bugle people claim ownership of over 11,000 square kilometers of land in the western part of Panama. Marcelino Montezuma, a Ngobe-Bugle leader, explained that his community rejected the mining of their territory out of concern for environmental degradation. The Ngobe-Bugle people felt that without autonomy over their land, they would be powerless to regulate the mining process. “First of all, we want independence, then we will see if mining will suit us," he said. While discarding the use of violence to gain autonomy, Montezuma insisted that the Indigenous people of Panama "are losing patience." He also said that they demand to be treated with dignity and will not allow the Panamanian government to take away their ancestral lands. Information courtesy of InterPress Third World News Agency. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Vol. 9, no. 1 (Spring 1995) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Bill to Grant Ngobe-Dugle Autonomy in Panama Type The nature or genre of the resource Journal Article Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource InterPress Third World News Agency Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Spring, 1995 Language A language of the resource English English Zotero Title Bill to Grant Ngobe-Dugle Autonomy in Panama Item Type Journal Article Author InterPress Third World News Agency Volume 9 Issue 1 Pages 4 Publication Title Abya Yala News: Journal of the South and Meso American Indian Rights Center (SAIIC) ISSN 1071-3182 Date Spring, 1995 Language English Abstract Note Strong opposition by the Ngobe-Bugle community of Panama to the mining of their lands led to the government creating a bill that will grant the community autonomy over its territory. Attachment Title Bill_to_Grant_Ngobe-Bugle_Autonomy_in_Panama.pdf Attachment URL [No URL] Autonomy Montezuma Marcelino Ngobe Ngobe-Bugle Territory https://www.abyayalanews.org/files/original/b5f1e040d2f2bcfb1f3312ffd9327f41.pdf 6f2832659bd635b7b67eabb3ce616325 PDF Text Text Honduras: Xicaque Denounce Government Xicaque leader Julio Soto recently denounced the Honduran government’s failure to demarcate their lands and assure their survival. “We’re in a bad state. The government will not say the land is ours, and allows the wild ‘ladinos' (non-Indians) to throw us off the land our ancestors left us,” he said. The Xicaque are one of the largest Indigenous groups in Honduras, and although they have been identified by national and international authorities as victims of social oppression, nothing has been done to alleviate the problems. The Xicaque suffer from starvation, illnesses, and the slow but eventual extermination of their people by colonizers of their land. A Xicaque elder, Timoteo Calixx, believes that the genocide of his people will end when the Honduran government sends the International Labor Organization (ILO) ratification of the Indigenous People's Convention 169, which guarantees their protection. Meanwhile, the government has promised to send the ratification of Convention 169 in order to assure all Indigenous communities that it will not abandon its commitment to preserve Xicaque lives and culture. Information courtesy of lnterPress Third World News Agency. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Vol. 9, no. 1 (Spring 1995) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Honduras: Xicaque Denounce Government Type The nature or genre of the resource Journal Article Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource InterPress Third World News Agency Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Spring, 1995 Language A language of the resource English English Zotero Title Honduras: Xicaque Denounce Government Item Type Journal Article Author InterPress Third World News Agency Volume 9 Issue 1 Pages 4 Publication Title Abya Yala News: Journal of the South and Meso American Indian Rights Center (SAIIC) ISSN 1071-3182 Date Spring, 1995 Language English Abstract Note Xicaque leader Julio Soto denounced the Honduran government's failure to demarcate their lands and assure their survival. Attachment Title Honduras_Xicaque_Denounce_Government.pdf Attachment URL [No URL] social oppression Territory Xicaque https://www.abyayalanews.org/files/original/7ba8590382df9a99c60e9436c78f45f5.pdf fd1d6c2682d8f97f9b6c465ad77d49d0 PDF Text Text So That We, The Ye'kuana, May Inhabit Our Land In Venezuela, the Ye'kuana nation has organized itself against a legal invasion. In 1978, the government of Venezuela, bypassing the Ye'kuana peoples, declared Duida-Murahuaca a National Park and OrinocoCasiquare a "Biospheric Reserve. Until recently, however, other than declaring both areas under Special Administration, its implementation never occurred. According to the Ye'kuana, government bureaucrats have systematically ignored their historical presence and territorial rights make decisions on their behalf. by Jose Felix Turon Transcribed b y Simeon Jimenez Turon I have come to Caracas for the first time in my life because our land is being threatened. Where I live, along the source of the Cunucunuma Rivet; I have heardrumors of invasions of lands close to us and of future plans to invade other lands in the area. Therefore, I, having always lived along the source of the Cunucunuma River, have come Caracas to write about the historical bases of our territorial rights. I will speak about the real owner of the land and about the origins of the land. This is how Wanadi gave us a piece of the Amazonian territory. The Origins of Our Land S/he who made the earth is called Wanasedume. There was no earth In the beginning Wanadi (or Wanasedume) created the earth so that we, the Ye'kuanans, may inhabit it, care for it, feed off it, manage its resources, and so that we may die there. Wanadi said, "Take care of the land. It belongs to you; do not destroy it ." That is how the land became ours. The owner of the material necessary to make the earth was Mane'uda. With his material Wanasedume created the earth. He made it inhabitable. That is how the earth was created. In the Beginning Wanasedume realized that people on earth had nothing to eat. S/he brought the yucca from the heavens, being the only one who knew where in the heavens it was. S/he first planted it in Roraima, so that everyone there could have food to eat. Wanasedume then realized that the Ye'kuanans, in their place of origin (Kamasoinaa, north of the Cutinamo River), had no food. Where she first brought the yucca, Maarawakajaina, it did not grow.S/he then took it to the Cunucunuma River where it grew for 24 hours until it reached the skies. Therefore, we, the Ye'kuanans, consider as our land the territory that begins at the Cutinamo River, as well as the Cunucunuma, the Ventari, and the Manapaire River. Wanadi gave the yucca to Kamasenadu. She was the owner of all food. Therefore, it is only the women, as the mothers or guardians of agriculture, who cultivate the earth. Wanadi planted the yucca in the yard of a house that belonged to a man by the name of Tudumashaka. Many fruits were born from the trunk of that yucca tree. The fruits were like rocks. The tree grew so big that no more yucca could be planted; people only ate the yucca that feU from the tree. Seeds and rain also fell. No longer able to grow upward, the tree grew sideways. Then the rock-hard fruits fell dangerously. Tudunadu, son of Tudumashaka, died picking up fruit to eat. Some told Kamasenadu that people were dying, urging her to find a solution soon. Kamasenadu agreed, granting permission to cut down the tree. The chief of the felling was Yakawiyena. He visited neighboring villages and asked Waimene, a chief with workers, to help him. They worked one day and night but the trunk did not fall, one of its branches being hooked to the sky. Kamasenadu was present at the felling to collect branches. Kamasenadu sent Wayuni (the moose) and Majadaku (the tiger) allnthe way to Mudumununa to bring water back to the place of the felling. There, a number of other chiefs were now also waiting. Seeing that the trunk was not sent falling, Kamasenadu sent Wadajaniyu to discover what was happening with the trunk above. Wadajaniyu returned, saying that he had no teeth and could not cut the branch hooked to the sky. Then, Kamasenadu sent Kadio (the squirrel), who was like people, advising her to stand on top of the trunk so that she could come down the same way she went up while the branches fell off. Kadio was able to grab a fruit and save it in her mouth before chopping the branch with her teeth. The tree fell and the squirrel came down with it. Ever since then, the trunk of the tree is called Madawkajujo. Kadio fell to her death at the foot of the tree in Tudumashaka's yard. The fall was so violent, her eyes welled up. This is why the squirrel's eyes are welled up. Kamasenadu quickly revived the squinel by blowing on her. When the tree fell, Wayuni and Majadaku were not present and therefore did not get fruit from the tree. The main branch fell toward chief Padamo. Majadaku, angry, threatened to eat people if he could not eat yucca. Wayuni, not having heard Majadaku very well, said that they would eat the leaves. Majadaku then said that he too would settle for leaves. Kadio, after her revival, sat on the trunk with the fruit hidden inside her cheeks. She mocked Majadaku for not getting any yucca. Soon their insults turned to fighting. They placed bets on who could kill whom. The winner would take the fruit as a prize. Majadaku jumped from trunk to trunk. Kadio lay Majadaku a trap. She placed a loose rock on his path. Majadaku stepped on it and fell. All of those involved in cutting down the tree became animals: Majadaku (the tiger), Wayuni (the moose), Kadio (the squirrel), Wadajaniyu (the "tuqueque"), Nukoyame (the woodpecker), and Dakono (the "tara larga"). The food which Wanadi gave to us was meant for the Ye'kuanans. All those who nowadays eat cassava took notice of where the branches of the tree of life fell, taking stems and sprouts from the branches. Some did not know how to properly cultivate yucca. The land surrounding the Autana River and the hills along its headwaters, and the land surrounding the Cutinamo, Padamo, Cunucunuma, the Ventuari rivers are apt for the cultivation of yucca. The lower regions (for example, the savannas of the Ayacucho Port, of the Esmeralda, or even the lands north of the Orinoco River) are not. This is the story of the beginnings of the domestication of yucca and other foods native to the Orinoco and the Amazon region-foods that all of us, peoples of the Amazon, eat today. Second Demarcation: Present-Day Boundaries of the Ye'kuana Communities We, the Ye'kuanans, have lost a great deal of the land which Kujuyani left us as his sacred legacy. We must defend this sacred legacy in the same way other religious groups demand respect for their churches or places of worship. On our land, we, the Ye'kuanans, should not permit others to indiscriminately and disrespectfully frequent our sacred sites - as is the case in Madawaka, Duida, Autana, parts of Piaora, and in the Pemon region of Roraima. During the months of March, April, and May, 1993, we the Ye'kuana coommunities of Culebra, Akanafia, Esmeralda, Tookishanamana, Watamo, Modeshijaina, and Huachamakare, met and agreed to establish our communities’ boundaries and to demand state recognition of those boundaries. Based on our people’s collected memory - embodied or condensed in the historical wisdom of Jose Felix Turon - six communities were able to demarcate their lands according to the teachings of the story of origins. Thus, our occupation of the lands we now reclaim dates back centuries. Our occupational rights precede the Europeans’ arrival and the founding of the Venezuelan State. Some national constitutions of Latin America have acknowledges these rights, including Brazil (1988), Colombia (1991), and Paraguay (1992). No declaration is more transcendental or powerful than our peaceful, productive, and conservationist occupation of the land that Wanadi and Kuyujani left in our custody. In this age of"preservation" and "sustainable management," it is imperative that the Venezuelan government respect our rights. Granting us legal rights to the lands we have occupied for centuries would not only be just and right, but also a guarantee for their "sustainable management." We fear there could come a time when we will not be allowed to live off the land. We do not want that moment to arrive, since our lands are food, shelter, our life, and religion. To deny us our land would be to amputate our soul and our supreme reason for living. Based on an excerpt from Esperando a Kuyujani by Simeon Jimenez and Abel Perozo (Eds) San Pedro de Lo Altos, Venezuela, 1994. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Vol. 9, no. 1 (Spring 1995) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource So That We, The Ye'Kuana, May Inhabit Our Land Type The nature or genre of the resource Journal Article Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource José Félix Turón Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Spring, 1995 Language A language of the resource English English Zotero Title So That We, The Ye'Kuana, May Inhabit Our Land Item Type Journal Article Author José Félix Turón Volume 9 Issue 1 Pages 16-17 Publication Title Abya Yala News: Journal of the South and Meso American Indian Rights Center (SAIIC) ISSN 1071-3182 Date Spring, 1995 Language English Abstract Note In 1978, the government of Venezuela, bypassing the Ye'Kuana peoples, declared Duida-Murahuaca a National Park and Orinoco-Casiquare a "Biospheric Reserve." According to the Ye'Kuana, government bureaucrats have systematically ignored their historical presence and territorial rights make decisions on their behalf. Attachment Title So_That_We_The_Ye'kuana_May_Inhabit_Our_Land.pdf Attachment URL [No URL] boundaries Cunucunuma River self-determination Territory Ye'kuanan yucca