Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador
The Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador or more CONAIE, is Ecuador's largest indigenous organization. Formed in 1986, CONAIE has pursued social change on behalf of the region's significant native population using a wide range of tactics, including direct action. CONAIE is most well known for its organization of popular uprisings that include blockading of commercial arteries and the takeover of government buildings. CONAIE's political agenda includes the strengthening of a positive indigenous identity, recuperation of land rights, environmental sustainability, opposition to neoliberalism and rejection of U. S. military involvement in South America. In 2013 CONAIE became more involved in discussions with other indigenous organizations involving land rights and environmental sustainability due to deals made by the government with large multinational oil companies; these deals concern the Amazon basin, would take over much of the indigenous land, inhabited. There has been much debate for many years between the governments, the indigenous peoples, the oil companies.
Chevron is a major oil company. CONAIE has taken their hope of drilling on indigenous land. CONAIE represents the following indigenous peoples: Shuar, Siona, Cofán, Huaorani, Záparo, Chachi, Tsáchila, Awá, Manta and Quichua. CONAIE is composed of three regional federations: the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon in the eastern Amazon region or Oriente. CONAIE was founded at a convention of some 500 indigenous representatives on November 13-November 16, 1986. Explicitly rejecting the use of the electoral process, CONAIE developed an economic and political strategy to redefine and implement participatory democracy. CONAIE called for the conversion of Ecuador into a multi-nation state recognizing the national autonomy of 12 indigenous nations, run by "popular parliaments". Throughout the 1990s, CONAIE mobilized thousands of indigenous campesinos to shut down Quito, clogging the streets with traditional dance and song while making demands of the political structure via direct negotiation.
These protests came in response to International Monetary Fund policies. CONAIE adopted a programme with these 16 demands: A public declaration that Ecuador is a plurinational country The government must grant lands and titles to lands to the nationalities Solutions to water and irrigation needs Absolution of indigenous debts to FODERUMA and the National Development Bank Freezing of consumer prices Conclusion of priority projects in Indian communities Nonpayment of rural land taxes Expulsion of the Summer Institute of Linguistics Free commercial handicraft activities CONAIE protection of archaeological sites Officialization of Indian medicine Cancellation of government decree that created parallel land-reform granting bodies The government should grant funds to the nationalities The government should grant funds for bilingual education Respect for the rights of the child The fixing of fair prices for products President: Humberto Cholango Vice President: Pepe Acacho Leader of Strengthening the Organization: Bartolo Ushigua Leader of International Relations: Silvia Tibi Leader of Women and Families: Mariana Solorzano Communication Leader: Evelio Gende Territory Leader: Mauricio Paqui Leader of Youth: Severino Sharupi Director of Education and Culture: Miguel Angel Bistin Director of Health and Nutrition: Ana Maria Chaiguamán In May 1990, on the 500th anniversary since Columbus' first trip to the Americas, the "1990 Indigenous Uprising" took place in Quito with the occupation of the Santa Domingo Church.
Led by CONAIE, protesters took to the streets to head towards Santa Domingo in May "to protest the failure of the legal system to process land claims." The protesters intended to occupy the church until CONAIE was able to meet with a government representative to discuss changes in policy regarding their land claim issues. It was not until June that the pivotal action of this movement occurred and changed the way that indigenous peoples in Ecuador were viewed; the occupiers in the Santa Domingo church were about to begin a hunger strike when "hundreds of thousands of Indians, in some areas with the support of mestizo peasants, blocked local highways and took over urban plazas. Their demands were focused on land, but included such issues as state services, cultural rights, the farm prices of agricultural products." This movement caused so much disruption to federal commerce and social order that the government relented and met with the leaders of CONAIE. This movement, did not gain the indigenous peoples much ground in terms of agrarian reform.
They accomplished some of their goals and saw some of their terms met, but it would not be until 1994 that CONAIE would make another stand. In 1994 another massive mobilizat
Indigenous intellectual property
Indigenous intellectual property is an umbrella legal term used in national and international forums to identify indigenous peoples' claims of intellectual property rights to protect specific cultural knowledge of their groups. It is a concept that has developed out of predominantly western concepts of intellectual property law, has most been promoted by the World Intellectual Property Organization, as part of a more general United Nations push to see the world's indigenous, intangible cultural heritage better valued and better protected against perceived, ongoing mistreatment. Nation states across the world have experienced difficulties reconciling local indigenous laws and cultural norms with a predominantly western legal system, in many cases leaving indigenous peoples' individual and communal intellectual property rights unprotected. Therefore, international bodies such as the United Nations have become involved in the issue, making more specific declarations that intellectual property includes cultural property such as historical sites, designs and performing arts in addition to artwork and literature.
While a number of Native American and First Nations communities have issued tribal declarations over the past 35 years, in the lead up to and during the United Nations International Year for the World's Indigenous Peoples during the following United Nations Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples a number of conferences of both indigenous and non-indigenous specialists were held in different parts of the world, resulting in a number of unified declarations and statements identifying, explaining and defining'indigenous intellectual property'. Before ceremonies and ceremonial knowledge were affirmed as protected intellectual property by the U. N. General Assembly, smaller coalitions of Indigenous cultural leaders met to issue declarations about protection of ceremonial knowledge. In 1980, spiritual leaders of the Northern Cheyenne, Hopi, Chippewa-Cree and Lakota Nations met on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation in Montana, issued a resolution that: These individuals are gathering non-Indian people as followers who believe they are receiving instructions of the original people.
We, the Elders and our representatives sitting in Council, give warning to these non-Indian followers that it is our understanding this is not a proper process, that the authority to carry these sacred objects is given by the people... The first international congress of the International Society of Ethnobiology involving anthropologists, chemists and indigenous peoples met at Belem, Brazil, they identified themselves collectively as'ethnobiologists', announced that since "Indigenous cultures around the world are being disrupted and destroyed.": "Mechanisms be established by which indigenous specialists are recognized as proper Authorities and are consulted in all programs affecting them, their resources and their environment" "Procedures must be developed to compensate native peoples for the utilization of their knowledge and their biological resources" The Kari-Oca Declaration and charter was first affirmed in Brazil in May 1992, re-affirmed in Indonesia, in June 2002. Ratifying the document were Indigenous peoples from the Americas, Africa, Australia and the Pacific who, at Kari-Oca Villages, united in one voice to collectively express their serious concern at the way the world was exploiting the natural resources upon which indigenous peoples depend.
Specific reference is made within the Indigenous Peoples Earth Charter to perceived abuses of indigenous people's intellectual and cultural properties. Under the heading,"Culture and Intellectual Property", amongst other matters, it is asserted: 99: The usurping of traditional medicines and knowledge from Indigenous peoples should be considered a crime against peoples... 102: As creators and carriers of civilizations which have given and continue to share knowledge and values with humanity, we require that our right to intellectual and cultural properties be guaranteed and that mechanisms for each be in favour of our peoples... 104: The protection and mechanism of artistic and artisan creation of our peoples must be established and implemented in order to avoid plunder, undue exposure, use... At the Lakota Summit V, an international gathering of US and Canadian Lakota and Nakota Nations, about 500 representatives from 40 different tribes and bands of the Lakota unanimously passed a "Declaration of War Against Exploiters of Lakota Spirituality."
Representatives affirmed a zero-tolerance policy on the exploitation of Lakota and Nakota ceremonial knowledge. Whereas we are conveners of an ongoing series of comprehensive forums on the abuse and exploitation of Lakota spirituality. Whereas non-Indian charlatans and "wannabes" are selling books that promote systematic colonization of our Lakota spirituality. 6. We urge traditional people, tribal leaders, governing councils of all other Indian Nations, as well as all national Indian organizations, to join us in calling for an immediate end to this rampant exploitation of our respective American Indian sacred traditions by issuing statements denouncing such abuse.
The Canadian Crown and Indigenous peoples of Canada
The association between the Canadian Crown and Indigenous peoples of Canada stretches back to the first decisions between North American Indigenous peoples and European colonialists and, over centuries of interface, treaties were established concerning the monarch and Indigenous tribes. Canada's First Nations, Métis peoples now have a unique relationship with the reigning monarch and, like the Māori and the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand view the affiliation as being not between them and the ever-changing Cabinet, but instead with the continuous Crown of Canada, as embodied in the reigning sovereign; these agreements with the Crown are administered by Canadian Aboriginal law and overseen by the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs. The association between Canada's Indigenous peoples and the Canadian Crown is both statutory and traditional, the treaties being seen by the first peoples both as legal contracts and as perpetual and personal promises by successive reigning kings and queens to protect Aboriginal welfare, define their rights, reconcile their sovereignty with that of the monarch in Canada.
The agreements are formed with the Crown because the monarchy is thought to have inherent stability and continuity, as opposed to the transitory nature of populist whims that rule the political government, meaning the link between monarch and Aboriginals will theoretically last for "as long as the sun shines, grass grows and rivers flow."The relationship has thus been described as mutual—"cooperation will be a cornerstone for partnership between Canada and First Nations, wherein Canada is the short-form reference to Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada"—and "special," having a strong sense of "kinship" and possessing familial aspects. Constitutional scholars have observed that First Nations are "strongly supportive of the monarchy," if not regarding the monarch as supreme; the nature of the legal interaction between Canadian sovereign and First Nations has not always been supported. While treaties were signed between European monarchs and First Nations in North America as far back as 1676, the only ones that survived the American Revolution are those in Canada, which date to the beginning of the 18th century.
Today, the main guide for relations between the monarchy and Canadian First Nations is King George III's Royal Proclamation of 1763. The proclamation set parts of the King's North American realm aside for colonists and reserved others for the First Nations, thereby affirming native title to their lands and making clear that, though under the sovereignty of the Crown, the Aboriginal bands were autonomous political units in a "nation-to-nation" association with non-native governments, with the monarch as the intermediary; this created not only a "constitutional and moral basis of alliance" between indigenous Canadians and the Canadian state as personified in the monarch, but a fiduciary affiliation in which the Crown is constitutionally charged with providing certain guarantees to the First Nations, as affirmed in Sparrow v. The Queen, meaning that the "honour of the Crown" is at stake in dealings between it and First Nations leaders. Given the "divided" nature of the Crown, the sovereign may be party to relations with Aboriginal Canadians distinctly within a provincial jurisdiction.
This has at times led to a lack of clarity regarding which of the monarch's jurisdictions should administer his or her duties towards indigenous peoples. From time to time, the link between the Crown and Aboriginal peoples will be symbolically expressed, through pow-wows or other types of ceremony held to mark the anniversary of a particular treaty — sometimes with the participation of the monarch, another member of the Canadian Royal Family, or one of the Sovereign's representatives—or an occasion mounted to coincide with the presence of a member of the Royal Family on a royal tour, Aboriginals having always been a part of such tours of Canada. Gifts have been exchanged and Aboriginal titles have been bestowed upon royal and viceregal figures since the early days of indigenous contact with the Crown: The Ojibwa referred to King George III as the Great Father and Queen Victoria was dubbed as the Great White Mother. Queen Elizabeth II was named Mother of all People by the Salish nation in 1959 and her son, Prince Charles, was in 1976 given by the Inuit the title of Attaniout Ikeneego, meaning Son of the Big Boss.
Charles was further honoured in 1986, when Cree and Ojibwa students in Winnipeg named Charles Leading Star, again in 2001, during the Prince's first visit to Saskatchewan, when he was named Pisimwa Kamiwohkitahpamikohk, or The Sun Looks at Him in a Good Way, by an elder in a ceremony at Wanuskewin Heritage Park. Since as early as 1710, Aboriginal leaders have met to discuss treaty business with Royal Family members or viceroys in private audience and many continue to use their connection to the Crown to further their political aims; the above-mentioned pageants and celebrations have, for instance, been employed as a public platform on which to present complaints to the Monarch or other members of the Royal Family. It has been said that Aboriginal people in Canada appreciate their ability to do this witnessed by both national and international cameras. Explorers commissioned by French and English monarchs made contact with North American Aboriginals in the late 15th and early 16th centuries.
These interactions were peaceful—the agents of each sovereign seeking the Indians' alliance in wresting territories away from the other monarch—and the partnerships were sec
In the 19th century, manifest destiny was a held belief in the United States that its settlers were destined to expand across North America. There are three basic themes to manifest destiny: The special virtues of the American people and their institutions The mission of the United States to redeem and remake the west in the image of agrarian America An irresistible destiny to accomplish this essential dutyHistorian Frederick Merk says this concept was born out of "a sense of mission to redeem the Old World by high example... generated by the potentialities of a new earth for building a new heaven". Historians have emphasized that "manifest destiny" was a contested concept—Democrats endorsed the idea but many prominent Americans rejected it. Historian Daniel Walker Howe writes, "American imperialism did not represent an American consensus. Whigs saw America's moral mission as one of democratic example rather than one of conquest."Newspaper editor John O'Sullivan is credited with coining the term manifest destiny in 1845 to describe the essence of this mindset, a rhetorical tone.
The term was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico and it was used to divide half of Oregon with the United Kingdom. But manifest destiny always limped along because of its internal limitations and the issue of slavery, says Merk, it never became a national priority. By 1843, former U. S. President John Quincy Adams a major supporter of the concept underlying manifest destiny, had changed his mind and repudiated expansionism because it meant the expansion of slavery in Texas. Merk concluded: From the outset Manifest Destiny—vast in program, in its sense of continentalism—was slight in support, it lacked national, sectional, or party following commensurate with its magnitude. The reason was; the thesis that it embodied nationalism, found in much historical writing, is backed by little real supporting evidence. There was never a set of principles defining manifest destiny, therefore it was always a general idea rather than a specific policy made with a motto. Ill-defined but keenly felt, manifest destiny was an expression of conviction in the morality and value of expansionism that complemented other popular ideas of the era, including American exceptionalism and Romantic nationalism.
Andrew Jackson, who spoke of "extending the area of freedom", typified the conflation of America's potential greatness, the nation's budding sense of Romantic self-identity, its expansion. Yet Jackson would not be the only president to elaborate on the principles underlying manifest destiny. Owing in part to the lack of a definitive narrative outlining its rationale, proponents offered divergent or conflicting viewpoints. While many writers focused upon American expansionism, be it into Mexico or across the Pacific, others saw the term as a call to example. Without an agreed upon interpretation, much less an elaborated political philosophy, these conflicting views of America's destiny were never resolved; this variety of possible meanings was summed up by Ernest Lee Tuveson: "A vast complex of ideas and actions is comprehended under the phrase "Manifest Destiny". They are not, as we should expect, all compatible, nor do they come from any one source." Journalist John L. O'Sullivan was an influential advocate for Jacksonian democracy and a complex character, described by Julian Hawthorne as "always full of grand and world-embracing schemes".
O'Sullivan wrote an article in 1839 that, while not using the term "manifest destiny", did predict a "divine destiny" for the United States based upon values such as equality, rights of conscience, personal enfranchisement "to establish on earth the moral dignity and salvation of man". This destiny was not explicitly territorial, but O'Sullivan predicted that the United States would be one of a "Union of many Republics" sharing those values. Six years in 1845, O'Sullivan wrote another essay titled Annexation in the Democratic Review, in which he first used the phrase manifest destiny. In this article he urged the U. S. to annex the Republic of Texas, not only because Texas desired this, but because it was "our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions". Overcoming Whig opposition, Democrats annexed Texas in 1845. O'Sullivan's first usage of the phrase "manifest destiny" attracted little attention. O'Sullivan's second use of the phrase became influential.
On December 27, 1845, in his newspaper the New York Morning News, O'Sullivan addressed the ongoing boundary dispute with Britain. O'Sullivan argued that the United States had the right to claim "the whole of Oregon": And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us; that is, O'Sullivan believed that Providence had given the United States a mission to spread republican democracy. Because Britain would not spread democracy, thought O'Sullivan, British claims to the territory should be overruled. O'Sullivan believed. O'Sullivan's original conception of manifest destiny was not a call for territorial expansion by force, he believed that the expansion of the United States would happen without the direction of the U. S. government or
Métis in Canada
The Métis in Canada are groups of peoples in Canada who trace their descent to First Nations peoples and European settlers French in the early decades. They are recognized as one of Canada's aboriginal peoples under the Constitution Act of 1982, along with First Nations and Inuit peoples; as of 2016, they number over 587,545. Canadian Métis represent the majority of people that identify as Métis, although there are a number of Métis in the United States. While the Métis developed as the mixed-race descendants of early unions between First Nations and colonial-era European settlers, within generations, a distinct Métis culture developed; the women in the unions in eastern Canada were Wabanaki and Menominee. Their unions with European men engaged in the fur trade in the Old Northwest were of the type known as Marriage à la façon du pays. After New France was ceded to Great Britain's control in 1763, there was an important distinction between French Métis born of francophone voyageur fathers, the Anglo-Métis descended from English or Scottish fathers.
Today these two cultures have coalesced into location-specific Métis traditions. This does not preclude a range of other Métis cultural expressions across North America; such polyethnic people were referred to by other terms, many of which are now considered to be offensive, such as Mixed-bloods, Half-breeds, Bois-Brûlés, Black Scots, Jackatars. The contemporary Métis in Canada are a specific Indigenous people. While people of Métis culture or heritage are found across Canada, the traditional Métis "homeland" includes much of the Canadian Prairies; the most known group are the "Red River Métis", centring on southern and central parts of Manitoba along the Red River of the North. Related are the Métis in the United States those in border areas such as northern Michigan, the Red River Valley, eastern Montana; these were areas in which there was considerable Aboriginal and European mixing due to the 19th-century fur trade. But they do not have a federally recognized status in the United States, except as enrolled members of federally recognized tribes.
Although Métis existed further west than today's Manitoba, much less is known about the Métis of Northern Canada. In 2016, 587,545 people in Canada self-identified as Métis, they represented 1.5 % of the total Canadian population. Most Métis people today are descendants of unions between generations of Métis individuals and live in Canadian society with people of other ethnicities; the exception are the Métis in rural and northern parts, who still live in close proximity to First Nations communities. Over the past century, countless Métis have assimilated into the general European Canadian populations. Métis heritage is more common than is realized. Geneticists estimate that 50 percent of today's population in Western Canada has some Aboriginal ancestry. Most people with more distant ancestry are not part of culture. Unlike among First Nations peoples, there is no distinction between Treaty status and non-Treaty status; the Métis did not sign treaties with Canada, with the exception of an adhesion to Treaty 3 in Northwest Ontario.
This adherence was never implemented by the federal government. The legal definition is not yet developed. Section Thirty-five of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes the rights of Indian, Métis and Inuit people. In 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada defined a Métis as someone who self-identifies as Métis, has an ancestral connection to the historic Métis community, is accepted by the modern community with continuity to the historic Métis community; the most well-known and documented mixed-ancestry population in Canadian history are the groups who developed during the fur trade in south-eastern Rupert's Land in the Red River Settlement and the Southbranch Settlements. In the late nineteenth century, they organized politically and had confrontations with the Canadian government in an effort to assert their independence; this was not the only place where métissage between Indigenous people occurred. It was part of the history of colonization from the earliest days of settlements on the Atlantic Coast throughout the Americas.
But the strong sense of ethnic national identity among the French- and Michif-speaking Métis along the Red River, demonstrated during the Riel Rebellions, resulted in wider use of the term "Métis" as the main word used by Canadians for all mixed Euro-Native groups. Continued organizing and political activity resulted in "the Métis" gaining official recognition from the national government as one of the recognized Aboriginal groups in S.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which states: 35. The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal People of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. In this Act, "Aboriginal Peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Métis Peoples of Canada.... Section-35 does not define criteria for an individual, Métis
Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957
Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 is an International Labour Organization Convention within the United Nations, established in 1957. Its primary focus is to recognize and protect the cultural, religious and social rights of indigenous and tribal populations within an independent country, to provide a standard framework for addressing the economic issues that many of these groups face. Today this Convention, C107, is considered outdated in the protection of indigenous rights by the ILO organization. In 1989, the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 was written with the purpose of revising it; the new convention has been ratified by twenty countries, including some that denounced the 1957 convention. In the body of the more recent convention, we read, " Considering that the developments which have taken place in international law since 1957, as well as developments in the situation of indigenous and tribal peoples in all regions of the world, have made it appropriate to adopt new international standards on the subject with a view to removing the assimilationist orientation of the earlier standards ".
The convention applies to members of a tribal population whose social and economic conditions are at a less advanced stage than other sections of the nation state and have their own customs and traditions. These tribal populations are people who are regarded as indigenous as they are the descendants of the original inhabitants of the region "...at the time of conquest, or colonization..." and who live more in common with their historical traditions and tribal institutions, than with the institutions of the nation state to which they belong. "Self-identification as indigenous..." is the criteria to which this convention would apply. The convention requires that the nation state work with indigenous groups to create a legal framework for protecting the legal rights of the indigenous groups; these actions include ensuring that the indigenous individuals have the same rights as the non-indigenous, to recognize and help preserve the traditions and cultural identity of the indigenous groups. Further actions include helping to remove economic gaps between the indigenous and other members of the nation state.
The convention maintains that indigenous and tribal peoples shall enjoy human rights and freedoms without discrimination, including gender discrimination. The nation state will adopt protections for the "...safeguarding the persons, property, labour and environment of the peoples concerned." These measures are not to be in conflict with the wishes of the people concerned, such safeguards will not be at the expense of the general rights of citizenship of the indigenous peoples. These articles support articles 1-4, giving methods for carrying out the general policy of the convention; the indigenous and tribal populations shall have right of ownership over lands that they populations have traditionally occupied. 1. The indigenous and tribal populations shall not be removed without their free consent from their historical territories except regarding national laws, national security issues, national economic development, or for the health of the indigenous populations.2. If removal of these populations is necessary, they shall be given lands of equal quality to the lands occupied by them, suitable to provide for their present needs and future development.3.
Persons thus removed shall be compensated for any resulting loss or injury. 1. Traditional customs of the transfer of land ownership rights shall be respected by the nation state "...within the framework of national laws and regulations... and do not hinder their economic and social development."2. "Arrangements shall be made to prevent persons who are not members of the populations concerned from taking advantage of these customs or of lack of understanding of the laws on the part of the members of these populations to secure the ownership or use of the lands belonging to such members". National state farm programs shall provide the necessary land needed for the indigiouns groups to provide "...the essentials of a normal existence", "...promote the development of the lands which these populations possess." This clause deals with the rights of access to full and occupationally safe employment, without fear of discrimination, under the same conditions as of the rest of the population, provides for the right to join legal trade unions, with access to "medical and social assistance..." and adequate housing.
"Persons belonging to the populations concerned shall enjoy the same opportunities as other citizens in respect of vocational training facilities." If there are no vocational training programs in place for this population, the government will provide them. After a careful study of the economic environment and the "...stage of cultural development" and practical needs of the indigenous population, the government shall provide vocational training programs for them. These special training facilities shall be provided for "...only so long as the stage of cultural development of the populations concerned requires them," until they are replaced by the facilities provided for other citizens. 1. Handicrafts and rural industries shall be encouraged for economic development in a manner which will enable these populations to raise their standard of living, "...in a manner which preserves the cultural heritage of these populations and improves their artistic values and particular modes of cultural expression."
Government social security programs shall be extended to all wage earners and other persons belonging to these populations. Governments will provide adequate health services for the populations concerned, based on studies of their social and cultural conditions. Equal educational opportuniti