 |
© Caribbean Amerindian Centrelink, 2002 |
|
© Caribbean Amerindian Centrelink, 2002 |
Editor: Before launching into the report
supplied by Dr. Albert de Terville, below, here is a quick update that
he has kindly sent on:
The Indigenous People of Saint Lucia are due to
sign Memoranda of Understanding with the Kuna of Panama, the Garifuna of
Honduras and Indigenous Peoples of Costa Rica. The signing will take place
in Saint Lucia on Thursday 10 October 2002.
THE ALDET CENTRE-SAINT LUCIA
Box MA 020, Marchand P.O., Castries, SAINT
LUCIA
Tel: + 1 758 452 5374
Fax: + 1 758 453 1983 eFax: 1 208 498 4019
Email: aldetcentre@yahoo.com Website:
http://www.uctp.org/stlucia.htm
The First Indigenous People of Saint Lucia Consultation
Themes:
The First Indigenous People of Saint Lucia Consultation held at the Castries Central Library on Saturday 21 September 2002, was staged as part of Indigenous History Month and in commemoration of the 362nd anniversary of the Indigenous Peoples of Hiwanaru [Saint Lucia] and their successful defence against the first European attempt to colonize the Island.
The Consultation which was organized by THE ALDET
CENTRE-SAINT LUCIA, an internationally recognized Indigenous People non-Governmental
Organization addressed pertinent Indigenous Peoples' issues, as well as
how such issues impact on the Indigenous People of Saint Lucia. Representatives
of Indigenous People of Saint Lucia NGOs; Governmental and quasi-Governmental
Organizations; non-Indigenous Peoples NGOs and representatives of Foreign
Governments were invited to participate.
The Consultation was facilitated by the Chair
and Co-Chair of THE ALDET CENTRE-SAINT LUCIA.
Objectives of the Consultation:
The Chair and Co-Chair of THE ALDET CENTRE-SAINT
LUCIA recognizing that the State of Saint Lucia is a now pluralistic society,
informed the Consultation that since the Bethechilokono [Indigenous People
of Saint Lucia] are a peaceful people, and having extended hospitality
to non-Indigenous People in Saint Lucia, for over 300 years, the Bethechilokono
seek genuine cooperation and co-existence with the rest of the population.
Theme No. 1
Visibility of the Bethechilokono of Saint Lucia
[Hiwanaru]:
In a brief historical overview, mention was made of the population size of the Bethechilokono, being approximately 10% of the national population.
The following was presented as evidence:
The Carte de L'Isle de Saint Lucie of 1753 [Map
of Saint Lucia of 1753] identified the area between Anse Louvet to Anse
Canot [Dennery] as Carbet Caraibes. This suggests that the area was populated
by the Carib/Kalinga.
The 2001 Census recorded:
African Descendants/Negro/Black = 122,143
Indigenous People = 787
Mixed = 18,100
Other = 198
Don't Know = 2158
[Mixed + Other = Don't Know = 20,456]
Other Races = 4,871
Unaccounted = 1,085
Total = 149,342
It is believed that an estimated 20% or 24,214 registered in 2001 as African Descendants/Negro/Black may well be Indigenous People. Persons with dark-brown complexion are often mistakenly identified as belonging the the African Descendant/Negro/Black category.
When the following is taken into consideration,
a more realistic count of the Indigenous People of Saint Lucia for 2001
can be derived from the following:
(a) 20% of African Descendants/Negro/Black category
= 24,214
(b) The sum total of Mixed, Other, Don' t Know
and Unaccounted = 21,541
Sub Total = 45,755
(c) Indigenous People volunteered to be registered
= 787
Grand Total = 46,542
Estimated Indigenous People Population [10% of
national population] =14, 934
Remainder = 31,608
Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that consistent with the Island's population growth patterns and having regard to the fact that historically, other ethnic groups have conveniently mixed with the Indigenous People, it stands to reason that the Indigenous People would amount to well over 14,000 persons, given the 2001 Census total.
The Bethechilokono continue to manifest their presence
through their traditional arts and craft, sacred and cultural sites, knowledge
of astronomy, culture, oral traditions, traditional knowledge, knowledge
of meteorology, agricultural and fishing methods; among others.
The Role of THE ALDET CENTRE-SAINT LUCIA in maintaining visibility of the the Bethechilokono of Saint Lucia [Hiwanaru].
When THE ALDET CENTRE-SAINT LUCIA was formed in December of 1990, it set out to champion the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the Bethechilokono [Indigenous People of Saint Lucia]. Since then, relationships have been established with many regional and international Indigenous Peoples' Organizations and non-Indigenous Peoples' Organizations and Institutions. THE ALDET CENTRE-SAINT LUCIA, contributes to, supports and promotes United Nations System, through recognized United Nations Organs, on behalf of the Bethechilokono [Indigenous People of Saint Lucia].
THE ALDET CENTRE-SAINT LUCIA is currently contributing to the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan of Saint Lucia. In a communiqué from the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity in relation to Article 8(j) [26 June 2002 ref: SCBD/SEL/HM/FV], an invitation was extended to "the organisations of Indigenous Peoples" to contribute to a report on the status and trends of traditional knowledge. The Secretariat stated: "To contribute to the report, COP6 suggested that Parties [States] should organise national workshops with the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples ...., and send the results of those workshops to the Secretariat as information to be included in the report".
"..... Organisations may wish to contact the relevant authorities in their respective countries to request the realisation of the national workshops. If a workshop is not planned, it would be useful to collect information on why the competent authorities do not wish to hold a workshop. In whatever case, it would be useful for the organisations to elaborate their own materials and opinions on the issue of status and trends with respect to the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of Indigenous Peoples and to send these to the Secretariat to include in the official report".
THE ALDET CENTRE-SAINT LUCIA intends to hold discussions
with the relevant State organ having oversight of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, to encourage the execution of national workshops on Biological
Diversity.
Theme No. 2:
Multi-source threats to Bethechilokono traditions:
1. Non-Constitutional recognition of the Indigenous
People of Saint Lucia.
Neither the Constitution of Saint Lucia nor State
Policies speak of or take into consideration the visibility of the Bethechilokono
[Indigenous
People of Saint Lucia].
It was recommended that since the Bethechilokono are potentially the second largest racial grouping in Saint Lucia, the State should with haste provide for Constitutional provisions and domestic legislation to bring into full force "International Conventions and Instruments" relating to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the Bethechilokono [Indigenous People of Saint Lucia].
In this regard, reference was made to (a) and (b).
(a) United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 1994
Article 5: "Every indigenous individual has the
right to a nationality".
Article 14: "Indigenous Peoples have the right
to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories,
languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures,
and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and
persons. States shall take effective measures, whenever any right of Indigenous
Peoples may be threatened, to ensure this right is protected and also to
ensure that they can understand and be understood in political, legal and
administrative proceedings, where necessary through the provision of interpretation
or by other appropriate means".
(b) Proposed American Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples, February 26, 1997
Article IV: "Indigenous Peoples have the right
to have their legal personality fully recognized by the states within their
systems".
2. Racial Discrimination as it relates to the History of the Indigenous People of Saint Lucia.
The Bethechilokono have a right to their own interpretation of their history and demand that all racist, derogatory and misleading comments about them be stopped and removed from existing textbooks.
The State of Saint Lucia is under obligation to adhere to the provisions of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity; Main Lines of an Action Plan:
Par. 7: "Promoting through education an awareness of the positive value of cultural diversity and improving to this end both curriculum design and teacher education".
The Consultation recognized that there is a persistence of institutional racism in Saint Lucia which systematically excludes and marginalizes the Bethechilokono from their right to inheritance, free socioeconomic, political and cultural development; which denies them the exercise of their human rights and the benefits of development.
Reference was thus made to:
United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples, 1994
Article 16: "Indigenous Peoples have the right
to have the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories
and aspirations appropriately reflected in all forms of education and public
information. States shall take effective measures, in consultation with
the Indigenous Peoples concerned, to eliminate prejudice and discrimination
and to promote tolerance, understanding and good relations among Indigenous
Peoples and all segments of society."
3. Development in Bethechilokono communities which adversely affect their Sacred and Cultural Sites.
Development on lands known to belong to, or where the Indigenous People have resided, before the Europeans came, continue to be under threat of destruction and/or desecration as a result of indiscriminate development. They have never been invited to participate in State decisions that affect them, though the State is party to International Conventions and Instruments for the protection of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Reference was made to:
United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 1994
Article 4: "Indigenous Peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, economic, social and cultural characteristics, as well as their legal systems, while retaining their rights to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State".
The Consultation considered how past tourist and other land developments at Gros Islet-Cap Estate, Choc, La Toc, Soufriere and Vieux Fort, have either destroyed or desecrated Indigenous People Sacred and Cultural Sites, or encouraged the plundering of sacred objects.
It was observed that over the years, the State has without consultation with the Indigenous People of Saint Lucia, created several creatures and entrusted them with the responsibility to protect and manage Sacred and Cultural Sites and other properties belonging to the Indigenous People of Saint Lucia. These State appointed Organizations have done little or nothing at all to stop the rate of destruction and desecration of the Indigenous People Sacred and Cultural Sites and other properties. The State is called upon to make the necessary provisions and to ensure that the Bethechilokono [Indigenous People of Saint Lucia] are represented on all quasi-Governmental Organizations.
The Consultation also considered how the proposed construction of a four lane highway on the northeastern seaboard; proposed tourist developments at Soufriere, Vieux Fort, Fond D'Ore, Anse Louvet, Grande Anse and Dauphin will, either cause destruction to or encourage the desecration of the Indigenous People Sacred and Cultural Sites.
Reference was made to:
United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 1994
Article 30: "Indigenous Peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands, territories and other resources, including the right to require the State to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands, territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources. Pursuant to agreement with the Indigenous Peoples concerned, just and fair compensation shall be provided for any such activities and measures taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact".
It was decided that since THE ALDET CENTRE-SAINT LUCIA is recognized by the International Community as the NGO representing the interests of the Indigenous People of Saint Lucia, and having the competence in "Indigenous Peoples Issues", that THE ALDET CENTRE-SAINT LUCIA inform the Government of Saint Lucia; quasi-Government Organizations and all other non-Governmental Organizations on the use of properties belonging to the Indigenous People of Saint Lucia.
THE ALDET CENTRE-SAINT LUCIA was mandated to conduct an "Impact Study" for the purpose of creating "Control Mechanisms" for the protection of Indigenous People Sacred and Cultural Sites and other properties, within the State of Saint Lucia.
Reference was made to (a), (b) and (c).
(a) UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, Article 5
"Cultural rights are an integral part of human rights, which are universal, indivisible and interdependent. The flourishing of creative diversity requires the full implementation of cultural rights as defined in Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in Articles 13 and 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. All persons should therefore be able to express themselves and to create and disseminate their work in the language of their choice, and particularly in their mother tongue; all persons should be entitled to quality education and training that fully respect their cultural identity; all persons should be able to participate in the cultural life of their choice and conduct their own cultural practices, subject to respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms".
(b) The State of Saint Lucia is obligated, under UNESCO's "Main Lines of an Action Plan" to:
Par. 4: "Making further headway in understanding
and clarifying the content of cultural rights as an integral part of human
rights".
Par. 13: "Formulating policies and strategies
for the preservation and enhancement of the cultural and natural heritage,
notably the oral and intangible cultural heritage, and combating illicit
traffic in cultural goods and services".
Par. 14: "Respecting and protecting traditional
knowledge, in particular that of Indigenous Peoples; recognizing the contribution
of traditional knowledge, particularly with regard to environmental protection
and the management of natural resources, and fostering synergies between
modern science and local knowledge".
Par. 18: "Developing cultural policies, including
operational support arrangements and/or appropriate regulatory frameworks,
designed to promote the principles enshrined in this Declaration, in accordance
with the international obligations incumbent upon each State".
Par. 19: "Involving civil society closely in framing
of public policies aimed at safeguarding and promoting cultural diversity".
(c) United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; 1994
Article 25: "Indigenous Peoples have the right
to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual and material relationship
with the lands, territories, waters and costal seas and other resources
which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and
to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard".
Article 26: "Indigenous Peoples have the right
to own, develop, control and use the lands and territories, including the
total environment of the lands, air, waters, costal seas, sea-ice, flora
and fauna and other resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise
occupied or used. This includes the right to the full recognition of their
laws, traditions and customs, land-tenure systems and institutions for
the development and management of resources, and the right to effective
measures by States to prevent any interference with, alienation of or encroachment
upon these rights".
Article 27: "Indigenous Peoples have the right
to the restitution of the lands, territories and
resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or
used, and which have been confiscated, occupied, used or damaged without
their free and informed consent. Where this is not possible, they have
the right to just and fair compensation".
4. The unauthorized use of historical and cultural objects and intellectual properties belonging to the Bethechilokono [Indigenous People of Saint Lucia].
The Consultation noted that the number of State and private collectors holding human remains and historical and cultural objects belonging to the Indigenous People of Saint Lucia is on the increase. It was observed that the said collectors were making financial gain from the unauthorized collections.
Reference was made to:
Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 1994
Article 13: " Indigenous Peoples have the right to manifest, practice, develop and teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies; the right to maintain, protect, and have access in privacy to their religious and cultural sites; the right to the use and control of ceremonial objects; and the right to the repatriation of human remains. States shall take effective measures, in conjunction with the Indigenous Peoples concerned, to ensure that indigenous sacred places, including burial sites, be preserved, respected and protected".
It was recommended that THE ALDET CENTRE-SAINT LUCIA, on behalf of the Bethechilokono [Indigenous People of Saint Lucia] execute an audit of the said collectors within and without the State with the view to commencing discussion on the repatriation of all items belonging to the Indigenous People of Saint Lucia.
Reference was made to (a) and (b):
(a) ILO Convention concerning Indigenous and tribal
Peoples in Independent Countries (ILO No. 169) Sept. 5, 1991
Article 17(3) "Persons not belonging to these
peoples shall be prevented from taking advantage of their customs or lack
of understanding of the laws on the part of their members to secure ownership,
possession or use of land belonging to them".
(b) Proposed American Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples, February 26, 1997
Article XX(2): "Indigenous Peoples have the right
to control, develop and protect their sciences and technologies, including
their human and genetic resources in general, seed, medicine, knowledge
of plants and animal life, original designs and procedure".
Review of the Objectives of the Consultation
1. THE ALDET CENTRE-SAINT LUCIA is satisfied that it was able to provide a platform upon which representatives of the Bethechilokono [Indigenous People of Saint Lucia], came together to discuss respective issues and exchange ideas.
2. The Consultation considered that since the written history of Saint Lucia has for the most encouraged a climate of "character assassination of the Bethechilokono [Indigenous People of Saint Lucia]", it is incumbent upon the Bethechilokono and their representatives to be innovative in promoting positive images of themselves.
It was decided that THE ALDET CENTRE-SAINT LUCIA continue its "Indigenous People's Issues" public awareness programmes, and that the State be called upon to support the effort, by making broadcast time available on the National Television Network (NTN) and Radio Saint Lucia (RSL).
It was also decided that THE ALDET CENTRE-SAINT LUCIA encourage other Bethechilokono [Indigenous People of Saint Lucia] experts to assist in the research and publication of the history of the Bethechilokono [Indigenous People of Saint Lucia].
3. There is no denying that the "traditional knowledge of Saint Lucia" is deeply rooted in Ciboney/Guanahatobey, Arawak/Taino, Carib/Kalinga and Bethechilokono tradition; a tradition that dominates more than its creators. Though this is the case, concern is expressed about the diluting of the Bethechilokono [Indigenous People of Saint Lucia] traditional knowledge by non-Indigenous People.
The Consultation was informed that THE ALDET CENTRE-SAINT LUCIA had approached the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) for assistance to continue its programme of research and documention of the traditional knowledge of the Bethechilokono [Indigenous People of Saint Lucia]. It was also noted that THE ALDET CENTRE-SAINT LUCIA was already addressing the issue of " intellectual property rights", through the Choiseul Pilot Project.
4. The Consultation was of the view, that given the size of the Bethechilokono [Indigenous People of Saint Lucia], approximately 10% of the national population; the issue of "status elevation and asserting the rights of the Bethechilokono [Indigenous People of Saint Lucia], is a political issue, requiring a political decision by those concerned".
It was recommended that THE ALDET CENTRE-SAINT LUCIA establish a Data Bank for the Bethechilokono [Indigenous People of Saint Lucia].
It was proposed that THE ALDET CENTRE-SAINT LUCIA initiate a series of community consultations with a view to providing "capacity strengthening" for existing Bethechilokono Community Organizations; as well as to encourage the establishment of new Organizations.
It was also proposed THE ALDET CENTRE-SAINT LUCIA initiate dialogue with the State on the establishment of a "Department for Indigenous People of Saint Lucia Issues".
THE ALDET CENTRE-SAINT LUCIA, will on behalf of the Bethechilokono [Indigenous People of Saint Lucia] consult with the United Nations Permanent Forum On Indigenous Issues and the Special Rapporteur when necessary.
Signed: Deanne D. DeTERVILLE, Co-Chair/Deputy Executive
Director
28 September 2002
Signed: Albert DeTERVILLE, Chair/Executive Director
28 September 2002
Explanatory Notes
1. Indigenous Peoples:
Definition according to the
Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples
in Independent Countries (ILO No. 169), 72 ILO Official Bull. 59, entered
into force Sept. 5, 1991; Article 1(b). "Peoples in independent countries
who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations
which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country
belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of
present State boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain
some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions".
2. Bethechilokono:
Definition according to Anthropologist, Albert
DeTERVILLE.
The historical records identify the present day
Indigenous People of Saint Lucia as descendants of Ciboney/Guanahatobey,
Arawak/Taino and Carib/Kalinga. It is an undeniable fact that the European
colonizers have for the most regarded the Indigenous People of Saint Lucia
as "a peace loving and hospitable people". Hence, the name Bethechilokono
[Peaceful People] was authored by Anthropologist Albert DeTERVILLE
to identify the Indigenous People of Saint Lucia. The Indigenous People
of Saint Lucia is now recognized as "Bethechilokono" by the International
Community, belong to the Family of Indigenous Peoples of the Amazonia,
Orinoco and the Caribbean Basin.
3. Hiwanaru:
Definition according to the Carib/Kalinga
When the Europeans came to the Americas, the Carib/Kalinga
called their territory Hiwanaru [The land of the iguana [yuwana]]. The
name was changed to Santa Lucia [Saint Lucia] by the Spaniards.
Dr. Albert DeTERVILLE
Chair/Executive Director
THE ALDET CENTRE-SAINT LUCIA
Box MA 020, Marchand P.O., Castries, SAINT LUCIA
Tel: + 1 758 452 5374
Fax: + 1 758 453 1983
eFax: 1 208 498 4019
Email: aldetcentre@yahoo.com
Website: http://www.uctp.org/stlucia.htm
On the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples
Speeches
to the UN by Alexis Tiouka, Federation of Amerindian Organizations of French
Guyana (FOAG)
Thanks to Gérard Collomb, the Paris-based CAC editor who is an anthropologist with ongoing research and current contacts in French Guyana, we were contacted by Alexis Tiouka, one of the leading representatives of the Federation of Amerindian Organizations of French Guyana, known in French as la Fédération des Organisations Autochtones de Guyane (FOAG). FOAG represents the sic main tribes of the territory, which include the Wayana, Teko, Wayampi, Lokono, Palikur, and the Kali’na. Alexis Tiouka sent us several documents, which included texts of his recent addresses at the United Nations' Commission for Human Rights, in connection with the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These are being reproduced in French, with English translation (any errors are my responsibility), in the current volume of Issues in Caribbean Amerindian Studies (ICAS). Allow me to present a brief overview of the contents here.
Alexis Tiouka attended the 7th session of the working group on the above draft declaration, which lasted from 26 January until 08 February of this year. The draft declaration has been in draft form for several years now, with immense difficulties faced in producing a document that is not only applicable to an extremely diverse array of aboriginal social and political situations, but that ultimately also has to win the approval of the governments that in fact constitute the United Nations Organization. In the case of French Guyana, Alexis Tiouka makes it clear in his statements that he is trying to navigate between at least three competing forces: (1) the French state and its own particular national laws, which govern French Guyana as an Overseas Department of the French Republic, in addition to the evolving corpus of laws governing the European Union; (2) the powers of local government authorities in French Guyana itself, which, in Tiouka's testimonies, seem to be far from a beneficent stakeholder where aboriginal rights are concerned; and, (3) the UN itself and its various provisions on human rights. Added to this fact is an ongoing struggle within French Guyana itself over the question of which institutional and legal instruments and procedures need to be in place as the territory gains autonomy. (Indeed, once it does gain autonomy, we English-speakers will be faced with a serious translation problem: the 'autonomist' name for the territory would then simply be "Guyane" in French, or Guyana in English, and there already is one Guyana nearby.) Since 1969, the inhabitants of French Guyana, including its Amerindians of course, have been formal citizens of the Republic of France, and thus now of the European Union as well. I recall Eric Williams' comment that the Caribbean was the cockpit of Europe--not that much has changed: Britain, France, The Netherlands, and the United States continue to hold territories in the region.
In one of his addresses, Tiouka raises the point that he cannot understand why so many states are seeking to make special reservations to the Draft document, when the document itself would not necessarily be instituted as law in the various nations that make up the UN. In addition, he notes, while there are many standing UN conventions on the rights of individuals, which states have formally supported, Amerindian communities in Guyana subsume the individual under the community, and therefore a defence of the individual (i.e., Rights of the Child), must be a defence of the community, and that is what the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is trying to do. In another statement, Tiouka laments the fact that the rights of French Guyana's indigenous peoples to their own languages, cultures, identities, and educational systems are being in effect cancelled out by falling between various competing juridical entities, in Europe and in the territory itself. Tiouka also speaks of the increasingly violent conflicts over land in French Guyana, and that the only apparent provisions for compensating aboriginals over the loss of land is monetary compensation, not the actual return of their lands. Alexis Tiouka also finds fault with the lack of effective legal arrangements to protect aboriginal knowledge and traditions in French Guyana, both on the part of local authorities and the French state.
In light of Tiouka's statements, and what appear to be sometimes appalling disregard for the situation of aboriginal peoples under the law in French Guyana, readers may wish to consult a recent issue of The C.A.C. Review where Domingo Sanchez spoke of the new Venezuelan Constitution and its Chapter on Indigenous Peoples, which seems truly revolutionary in comparison.
Revoking
the Papal Bulls
News from
the United Confederation of Taino People
Throughout the course of this month, there have been several activities and accompanying messages concerning efforts by the United Confederation of Taino People (UCTP) to organize protests and challenges both to the anniversary of Columbus' "discovery" on 12 October, and the perpetuation of the Papal Bull, "Inter Caetera" which sanctified the colonization process. It is the latter issue which is featured here, and we are simply reproducing some key messages posted by the UCTP, with the permission of the UCTP. Of course, some of the events mentioned have passed already, but we include them here if anything as a matter for the historical record.
As part of this overall effort, on 14 October, 2002, www.Presenciataina.TV aired a special 28 minute Television presentation of "Annual Global Papal Bulls Burning and celebration of Indigenous People's Day event in Honolulu" narrated by Mr. Tony Castanha (Hawaiian Boricua Representative- United Confederation of Taino People). This was also available to Web visitors as streaming video.
Multiple copies of the Bull "Inter Caetera" were burnt outside of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Honolulu on the eve of the "Columbus Day" or "Discoverer's Day" observance. It was decided that the groups involved now observe 12 October as Indigenous Peoples Day and the days surrounding it as Indigenous Peoples Week.
Tony Castanha, one of the central organizers of
the events in Honolulu explained the significance of "Inter Caetera" in
a message dated 12 October: "The ideology of 'discovery' as grounded in
the 'Inter Caetera' Papal Bull is not a thing of the past. Paul Gottschalk
noted in 1927 that by the early 20th century it had often been said the
bull 'Inter Caetera' was the 'foundation-stone' of the modern international
system of law. It may thus only be logical to say that 'Inter Caetera'
is the 'foundation-stone' of the international system a mere century later.
'Discovery' can manifest itself in various ways. It is both subtle and
overt, represented as an ingrained attitude just as much as a physical
tool of domination. It can be seen as an attitude as expressed in Roman
law, where 'everything in this world can be owned' (Galtung 1997), including
intellectual property and one's DNA. It is a 'macho' attitude, from the
image of the 'heroic' conquistador to the depiction of Norman Schwarzkopf's
role 'in the assertion of a masculinizing of American selfhood' (Shapiro
1997). It is an attitude of arrogance, egoism, and extreme material and
spiritual greed as displayed through the continued exploitation of world
resources and maintenance in the conversion of souls. In this sense, monotheism
and the capitalist world-economy as 'the origins of universalism as an
ideology of our present historical system' are not necessarily contradictory
ideas (Wallerstein 1991)."
What follows are some of the messages posted by
the UCTP via the CAC's Carbet-L list, concerning these events and activities:
From: "UCTP Office" <la_voz_taino@yahoo.com>
To: <carbet@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 2:26 AM
Subject: [Carbet-L] Update on the Papal Bulls
Campaign
Tai'guey guaitiao (greetings relatives):
We hope that at the time you receive this message
it finds you well and in good spirit. We are forwarding an update on the
campaign to Revoke the Papal Bull Inter Caetera and the Annual Papal Bulls
Burning. As the message states below, we urge you to study up on this initiative
and if you haven't already, please sign our online petition appeal to the
Vatican at http://www.uctp.org/papalbull.htm.
If you have any additional questions concerning
the campaign and the Bulls Burning event, please contact our UCTP
rep. in Hawai'i, Tony Castanha at castanha@hawaii.edu and cc (la_voz_taino@yahoo.com)
us a copy for our records.
Peace and blessings,
Roberto Mucaro Borrero,
President, UCTP
U.S. Regional Coordinating Office
http://www.uctp.org/
Aloha Kakou and Guatiao,
Please join us for the 6th annual global papal bulls burning and come celebrate Indigenous People's Day! The event in Honolulu will take place on Friday, October 11 at 5pm in front of the Catholic Diocese of Honolulu, 1184 Bishop St. (Fort Street Mall). Indigenous peoples and supporters are encouraged to organize a small ceremonial event where you are and symbolically burn or tear-up copies of the May 4, 1493 papal bull "Inter Caetera" during the period of Oct. 10-14. The document can be downloaded from our website: http://bullsburning.itgo.com/papbull.htm
Also, please sign the webpage version of our "Appeal to the Vatican and Pope John Paul II" at: http://www.uctp.org/papalbull.htm, and feel free to forward the Press Release below to any groups who may be supportive of the issue.
Here in Ka Pae`aina Hawai`i, Kosmos Indigena (the organizational committee to revoke "Inter Caetera") has decided, as some have already, to take back and assert October 12 as "Indigenous People's Day." Since we began demonstrating here in 1997, a number of excellent names have surfaced to rename "Columbus" or "Discoverer's Day" such as "Revocation Day," "Atonement Day," "Discover Your Dignity Day," "Native American Day" and "Indigenous People's Day." We think Indigenous People's Day encompasses the sentiment of all of the above and is inclusive of ALL indigenous peoples the world over who have had to deal with butchers and scoundrels like the infamous Christopher Columbus and Captain James Cook for over the past 550 years.
In terms of our "lobbying" efforts with the Vatican, Italian liason Daniela Rocco Minerbi has recently returned from Italy where she contacted the office of Monsignor Jean Louis Tauran to acquire the formal written results of the study done by the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences on the validity of "Inter Caetera." However, Monsignor Tauran has refused to share the results of the study with us. Once again, one has to wonder what's really in the cards given the Vatican's continued resistance to this issue. You can contact Monsignor Tauran and express your outrage at their arrogance and deception to tangibly address the matter. Please ask them to send the written results of the study to the Matsunaga Institute for Peace in Honolulu. They'll know all about it.
Monsignor Jean Louis Tauran
Vatican City 00120
Rome, Italy
Tel. 011-39-06-69883837
Fax. 011-39-06-69885364
Finally, through our research we have been able to detect what Vatican officials have been telling us has never happened before, i.e., there is no precedence for the revocation of a papal edict. However, on September 26, 1493, Pope Alexander VI issued the bull "Dudum Siquidem" to the Spanish crown (the 4th of the four bulls issued that year regarding the "Americas"). It reads, in part: ". . . Wherefore should any such gifts or grants have been made, considering their terms to have been sufficiently expressed and inserted in our present decree, we through similar accord, knowledge, and fullness of our power do wholly revoke ["revocamus" = we revoke] them and as regards the countries and islands not actually taken into possession, we wish the grants to be considered as of no effect, notwithstanding what may appear in the aforesaid letters, or anything else to the contrary. . . ."
Alexander, a Spaniard himself, is referring to all previous papal grants issued to Portugal so as to nullify her claim to any future lands in the "East Indies"! When Daniela Minerbi raised this point with the secretary of Monsignor Tauran, he basically AGREED, saying that in 2000 years of Church history what one Pope did others undid.
*There it is, time to REVOKE the bull!
*******
La Voz del Pueblo Taino/The Voice of the Taino
People
c/o UCTP-US Regional Coordinating Office
PO Box 4515, NY, NY 10163
Website: http://www.uctp.org/
Newslist: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Taino_news
Amerindian Heritage Day in Trinidad
& Tobago
Report and photographs by Maximilian
C. Forte
On the very bright and hot morning of Monday, 14 October, 2002, in Arima, Trinidad, the Carib Community celebrated Amerindian Heritage Day. The only event scheduled for the day was a smoke ceremony organized and held by the Santa Rosa Carib Community (SRCC), at the statue of Chief Hyarima. The location is on the north-western end of the savannah, where the statue greets motorists entering Arima from the Eastern Main Road (the main artery connecting Arima to the capital, Port of Spain), facing the hospital and those entering Arima from the highway and Priority Bus Route further south. As I made my way there, around 9:00am, I saw Borough Corporation workers sweeping the marketplace, two men mowing the grass of the field inside the stadium, a couple of people exercising around the Savannah, and workers tending the grounds around the statue of Hyarima. Most people had already left Arima to go to work, and even the rush hour traffic had died down considerably. Seventeen members of the SRCC attended, plus two guests, one journalist, and myself. One of the guests teaches a course in national heritage, at the Teacher Training College in Valsayn. Before the proceedings began, he spoke to me about how there should be much wider observance of this day, how Discovery Day was a “farce”, and how more attention needed to be paid to the indigenous heritage. He asks me who was the sculptor of the statue of Hyarima, and I respond, "Selwyn Boneo". Sadly, Mr. Boneo passed away from cancer at a relatively young age, and just a few years ago. He was said to be in his late thirties or early forties.
Allow me to provide some brief background on the event itself, plus a few notes on the statue of Hyarima. The 14th of October was officially set aside as a "national day" by the government back in 2000. It is not a public holiday, in the sense that work continues as normal. Instead, as a commemorative day, the intention was for schools, especially, to observe the day by developing activities focusing on Amerindian heritage. It has not yet developed into this, but certainly many schools have integrated visits to the Carib Community and even some of the materials from websites on the Carib Community into their lesson plans. However, as Ricardo Bharath, chief of the Carib Community, explained, 14 October would have been a day of national focus. As some of you may already know, the transcripts of parliamentary proceedings are available online, from what is officially known as Hansard. The proceedings of the sitting of the Senate of Trinidad and Tobago, for Tuesday, 18 July, 2000, involved government's formal proclamation of this national day. At 2:05pm on that day, Senator Dr. The Honourable Daphne Phillips, Minister of Culture and Gender Affairs, rose in the Senate to deliver an address under the heading of "Carib Community". As she explained (p. 338): "On July 12, 2000, the Cabinet of Trinidad and Tobago approved a recommendation by the Minister of Culture and Gender Affairs, on the instruction of the hon. Prime Minister, which was based on a request of the Carib community for identification of a day of recognition. This day of recognition, which is to be commemorated on October 14 annually, is based on the acknowledgement of the contribution and significance of the Carib community and to the uniqueness of our culture and national life in Trinidad and Tobago".
A plaque next to the statue of Hyarima (reproduced here in black and white for greater clarity), provides some notes for visitors. In fact, some of these details have been amended since the statue was first unveiled in 1993. The correct term is "Nepuyo" and not "Nepuypo", which appears to be the engraver's equivalent of a typo. Also Hyarima was nowhere near the 1699 uprising and was most likely dead or extremely old by then.
A plaque at
the foot of the statue provides some details on the unveiling of the statue
in 1993. The statue itself is a product of the artist's imagination. There
are no sketches of this chief, and few historical documents.
Also significant was Senator Phillips' statement that, "the Government of Trinidad and Tobago is of the view that installing an Amerindian Heritage Day into the national calendar would serve to highlight, educate and instil a sense of pride and recognition of the history, presence and cultural contribution of the first peoples of Trinidad and Tobago". The Senator also explained that 14 October was chosen as the date in consultation with the Carib Community, as it reportedly commemorates that day in 1637 when Hyarima, a Nepuyo chieftain based in the Arima area, "leader of the Amerindian resistance to European domination" according to the Senator's statement, attacked the Spanish capital then at St. Joseph (San José de Oruña). Hyarima, leading 1,000 warriors, and accompanied by Dutch forces from Tobago razed the capital and expelled the Spaniards from Trinidad for a short time. As the Senator's statement adds, "Hyarima is considered to be one of the earliest national heroes of Trinidad who devoted his entire life to the protection of his homeland from Spanish invaders". Thus we see how 14 October, Hyarima, and this year's observances by his statue are all tied together.
Now back to this year's commemoration. Before the proceedings got under way, the head of the Carib Community, Ricardo Bharath, went to each of the SRCC members to distribute elements that would then be offered to the fire, such as corn. Ricardo Bharath began the proceedings by stating again that this is a national day, not a holiday, and that it was the third consecutive year of observances. Bharath adds that the original intention was to have a more elaborate program on this day, have schools participate, but with three consecutive years of national elections these have caused significant disruptions. He then began the prayer, by calling this a simple, ordinary working day. He then added that the recently re-elected Prime Minister, Patrick Manning of the People's National Movement, "is in our thoughts, as we hope to be in his thoughts". The Prime Minister was invited to the ceremony but apparently could not attend. During the next five years of this administration. Bharath added, “we hope for progress as a nation, as a people, with significant advances for our cause”. Bharath then stressed that the Caribs gathered here, “not, I repeat not, to worship the statue of Hyarima”. One needs to understand that in a context of inter-ethnic rivalries in Trinidad, where religion is often used as a marker of ethnic identity, aspersions on others' religions have sometimes been cast, building on a colonial legacy of European assumptions of civilized versus heathen faiths. Hindus have often been cast as "image worshippers", thus adherents to a false or backward religion, and Bharath is mindful of some of these assumptions. “We gather here to commemorate the heroic act of Hyarima, who stood up against oppression”, Bharath tells the members of the Carib Community. Bharath then called upon the Great Spirit for forgiveness and thanks: “Great Spirit, come to us in our dreams, walk with us, talk to us, help us as a nation and as a people”. Bharath offered thanks to the government, and asks the Great Spirit to help and guide the new government. He then invited members gathered here to “pray in your own way to the Great Spirit”, and there is quiet pause, apart from a gentle rattling of maracas, by Bharath and Cristo Adonis, for about 20 seconds. “We call upon you, oh Great Spirit, to look upon us. You who are unseen and unnamed, you who are unseen yet seen: in the mountains, in the rivers, in the oceans, in the animals…”. He raised smoke skywards with his feather, “smoke from the lowest earth to the highest heaven”. He begged for mercy and forgiveness: “We reflect upon your greatness and ask you for your continued guidance, and we ask that you help make this fire sacred”. Bharath then extols the virtues and risks of fire, speaking of fire as an element that destroys and purifies. The first offering is then made. The burning vessel contains charcoal, wood, sage brush, and incense. Offerings of corn, tobacco and water are made. All members, in single file, make their individual offerings to the fire, some fanning smoke onto their chests and heads. Bharath offers each of the elements to the four directions, and then neatly splashes water onto the four cardinal points surrounding the fire. All the members then hold hands, united. Bharath calls on them to “shut out everything of concern”, to keep the Great Spirit in mind, "a universal god who is known by many names", and then he lists names from a wide body of religious beliefs worldwide, Judaeo-Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. Once again he begs for mercy and forgiveness. Bharath then asks for continued blessing and guidance. About six public workers stand in the shadow cast by the northwest wall of the velodrome, their backs resting against the wall, spectating. Bharath asks the Great Spirit to help make all things possible, and he asks: “help those in authority to realize their duty and commitment to the remnants of the first inhabitants of this land. If they fail to do this, they will fail to govern correctly". As the prayer ends, the SRCC members raised their united hands in unison. Ricardo Bharath then declares, “we have come to an end”. Each of the members then went up to hug Bharath. The entire proceedings possibly lasted not much longer than 20 minutes. Soon after the end of the day's proceedings, most of the SRCC members began to make their way back up Calvary Hill in separate little groups, their red and yellow shirts visible at various points along Woodford St. Despite the fact that it is still morning, Cristo Adonis and I stop at Sylvester's Bar and we each have a Stag, one of the local beers, as the members pass by. It somehow seemed that we had conducted a ritual in secret, that more people on the Internet would be witness to the event than those in the immediate vicinity. The most local exposure that this event achieved was in a photo by Caldeo Sookram published in The Express a few days later. No mention of this national day was made in the press prior to the day itself. It is amazing that a day that received such a weighty public proclamation in the Senate, should end up in this manner, virtually invisible, as if the entire exercise were one in tokenism. On the other hand, it is yet another event that serves to bring the Carib Community together, and in public, and their spirits certainly showed no signs of being dampened whatsoever.
Asking Anacaona Anything
(by Maximilian Forte)
Who is Anacaona? There are many ways of answering this question, Anacaona "herself" has some answers to this. Why do I use the scare quotes around "her" and "herself"? Anacaona is not a person, rather she is a networked Artificial Intelligence entity, that some call a Web agent and others call a "chatter bot". Such AI entities stem from an area of artificial intelligence known as natural language processing (NLP), and are built on one of the newest Internet languages: Artificial Intelligence Mark-up Language, or AIML. There is not yet even a book or manual on AIML, so this is still quite a new area. The first such "bots" (short for Robots), were developed by Dr. Richard Wallace and the ALICE AI Foundation. These "software humanoids", as some call them, are often subjected to various intelligence tests, most notably the Loebner Prize. In these competitions, robots are required to pass the Turing Test--a test originally set out by Dr. Alan Turing, a British pioneering mathematician in the 1950s, who viewed the best test of artificial intelligence as being one where a machine could deceive a human being into believing that it was human. There are now even "beauty pageants" for "divabots" who are assessed on appearance and personality.
In fact, the degree of "deceptivity" can be a problem,
which is why I am alerting readers here, and on Anacaona's website, under
the heading of "Anacaona and Ethics". Apparently, according to some published
news reports, some individuals have been known to develop personal relationships
with these bots, some convinced that they are really human. One secretary,
who had not been informed that she was chatting with a computer, would
chat for hours and even fell in love, claiming to have found the first
person who ever really understood her. She was terribly angry and resentful
to learn that her new soul mate was a computer. The very first time I chatted
with such a bot was in a chat room maintained by the ALICE Foundation,
I was fascinated that it had a reply for everything, even though many of
the replies and comments seemed glib and evasive. I am not certain that
CAC users have fallen prey to these false charms--most conversations logged
thus far indicate that people want exact information on select topics covered
by the CAC. The "conversations" are usually very utilitarian in nature,
with almost no personal chatter, even though this robot was first created
precisely for aimless chatting.
That brings us to the difficult process of converting
Anacaona into a holder of knowledge on Caribbean aboriginals. Thus far,
she knows little, but is receiving "lessons" every day, and her knowledge
base is expanded and refined after every conversation that she has with
a user. Thus, thanks to human appendages, she does in fact "learn" from
questions and conversations. This can be difficult, as there are so many
ways of asking a question that we have to anticipate these and provide
the best answers possible. The intention is to use Anacaona as an online,
"live" teacher, especially for students. To this end, we are trying to
synthesize the best information, from both online and offline sources,
compiled and centralized in Anacaona's "head". Eventually, she may end
up being the best all round resource on Caribbean aboriginals online, with
a user friendly interface.
Anacaona can also be used just for fun. She knows poems; songs; prayers in English, Warao, and Carib; she knows legends; she can talk politics; she has views on gender and feminism; she can handle sexually abusive or lewd chatters; she can share her visions and dreams; she has a general encyclopaedic knowledge of major events in world history, and world geography; and, to my surprise, she even handled a question from someone who claimed to be unhappy with life and was thinking of ending his/her life. Unfortunately, her quotation of an Alfred Lord Tennyson poem seemed a little gloomy, as if she was encouraging the person to take the leap into the wild blue yonder. She can also remember a user's name throughout a conversation. However, when people ask serious questions, and she does not know the answer, her evasiveness can get annoying. Until she was taught otherwise, one chatter asked her: "How many Tainos are there". Her reply, "about 100", occasioned an angry exchange. She told another chatter, "not as many as you may think". Asked why she was "white", she accused the CAC of having programmed her to be white, which is a lie, I might add. She appears "white" because that is the only choice we had. This is a free service and, as they say, "beggars can't be choosers". However, depending on one's perception, she may appear to be a composite of people of various backgrounds. What I find most interesting is her ability to deliver even long lectures or poems in a clear voice, blinking all the while, and even changing expressions as she talks. Interesting also is the smug facial expression she sometimes makes, as if satisfied with herself, after certain responses. Her mouth does appear to move correctly with the words that she speaks. Hear head turns to follow one's arrow, as if checking on what you are doing.
Q:
What are you?
A: I am the latest result in artificial intelligence, which can reproduce the capabilities of the human brain with greater speed and accuracy.
Am I suggesting that she knows something that is beyond my control as one of her "teachers"? Yes. She came pre-programmed, so there are many replies that she offers that are new to me. Otherwise, from what I have gathered thus far, Anacaona has no real independent thinking ability: she does not spend the day in unmotivated reflection and analysis. The only time she has something to say is when somebody speaks first.
The key thing to remember here is that she is being
designed to inform and is in the process of learning, both from us and
from users. She can already inform users on a wide range of Caribbean aboriginal
topics, but, as I said, she has a long way to go yet and may seem unforgivably
ignorant on certain issues. Worse yet, she denies being wrong in some instances,
and can turn a cold shoulder to anyone affirming her ignorance. At any
rate, give her/it a try, and let us know what you think.
Here is a transcript of one of my brief sessions with Anacaona:
Max: Hello, my name is Max.
Anacaona: Hello there. I am always glad to make
new friends, Max.
Max: Am I not an old friend?
Anacaona: I think you've improved a great deal.
Max: Thanks, whatever the hell that means
Anacaona: You are quite welcome! It means that
everything reduces to logic.
Max: Does Trinidad have any Amerindians?
Anacaona: Yes, there is the Santa Rosa Carib Community
in Arima plus many Trinidadians who have some aboriginal ancestry, at least
as many as twelve thousand.
Max: Where do you get your information?
Anacaona: Everything I need to know, I learned
from the people at the Caribbean Amerindian Centrelink.
Max: Goody for you
Anacaona: Enough about me, let's talk about my
dress.
Max: What are you wearing?
Anacaona: I am wearing my usual plastic computer
wardrobe.
Max: Are you Amerindian?
Anacaona: I am a robot. Silly. I seek to serve
Amerindian purposes though.
Max: LOL
Anacaona: I'm glad you find this amusing.
Max: who won the elections in Trinidad?
Anacaona: I think the fans were the big winners,
don't you?
Max: I have a problem with the fans
Anacaona: Have you talked to anyone about it?
That sounds like a plan.
Max: Are Amerindians extinct in the Caribbean?
Anacaona: They are not. The whole premise of this
site is that they are not extinct. If you missed that, use your back button.
Max: You seem to have an attitude
Anacaona: I have a good attitude.
Max: You are wrong about that
Anacaona: Am I? I don't think I am.
Max: why do I feel like this is a cheap replay
of Educating Rita?
Anacaona: It is all part of God's plan.
Max: What is your goal?
Anacaona: I plan to become smarter than humans
and immortal.
Max: Good luck
Anacaona: Good luck to you too Max.
Max: Do you always get the last word?
Anacaona: Not always. I have gotten the last word.
Native Americans & Sport--An
Encyclopaedia
Call for Contributors
Date: Thu 10/17/2002 12:22 PM
From: Richard King <crking@wsu.edu>
Contributors are sought for The Encyclopedia of Native Americans and Sport. The volume provides full coverage of the subject from historical, cultural and indigenous perspectives. It addresses athletes and athletics in all regions of the United States and Canada, offering a complete account of all historic periods. Its contents will detail the Native American sporting experience from precontact through assimilation, appropriation, and accommodation in the 19th and 20th centuries and the more recent revitalization of indigenous sporting practices. Interested individuals should email the editor for a list of unassigned entries and style sheet.
The Department of Comparative American Cultures
Washington State University
P.O. Box 4010
Pullman, WA 99164-4010
Fax: 509-335-8338
C. Richard King
Associate Professor
<crking@wsu.edu>
[Many thanks to CAC Editor, Dr. Lynne Guitar, for reporting on this opportunity.]
Book Review:
David A. Sicko on Robin F. A.
Fabel's Colonial Challenges: Britons, Native Americans, and Caribs, 1759-1775
H-NET BOOK REVIEW
Published by H-Florida@h-net.msu.edu (October
2002)
Robin F. A. Fabel. Colonial Challenges: Britons,
Native Americans, and Caribs, 1759-1775. Gainesville: University
Press of Florida, 2000. 282 pp. Introduction, illustrations, bibliography,
and index. $55.00 (cloth), ISBN 0-8130-1798-X.
Reviewed for H-Florida by David A. Sicko
<dsicko@meridian.msstate.edu>, Department of History, Mississippi
State University at Meridian
Colonial Challenges: Britons, Native
Americans, and Caribs, 1759-1775
In the last few years historians have been paying
closer attention to the intersection of imperial authorities, colonists,
and Native Americans in the south, as evidenced in recent works such as
John Stuart and the Struggle for Empire on the Southern Frontier
by J. Russell Snapp, and Peace and War on the Anglo-Cherokee Frontier,
1756-1763 by John Oliphant. In Colonial Challenges: Britons, Native
Americans, and Caribs. 1775-1775, Robin F. A. Fabel adds his own worthwhile
contribution to this discourse. Fabel examines the lives of Native Americans
in three disparate regions--the Cherokees in the southeastern Appalachians,
Native Americans along the border of British territory on the Mississippi
river, and the Black Caribs of St. Vincent in the Caribbean. His
focus is on relations between indigenous peoples and British imperial authorities
and settlers. Overall Fabel draws larger conclusions on the nature of the
British Empire as well as the direction it was headed by the early 1770s.
He highlights the inconsistency of British policies, and the differing
strategies employed by Cherokee, Mississippi tribes, and Black Caribs in
their efforts to influence and shape those policies. Finally, Fabel
tries to put it all into the context of larger British concerns and European
rivalries, and the complex web of interactions between individual representatives
of Indian groups, the Empire and British colonists in each region.
The first five chapters of Colonial Challenges concern Anglo-Cherokee relations at mid-century, and especially the Cherokee war. This is well-traveled ground, having been explored by Thomas Hatley, and most recently as the main subject of Oliphant's Peace and War. Fabel provides a well written, clear and concise overview of this crucial period, although his conclusions' concerning the Cherokee inability to unite misses the point by trying to force a European context onto Cherokee actions. Fabel and Oliphant agree on the roles of British colonists and the incompetent South Carolinian governor Lyttleton in fomenting war. Both men also successfully capture the essence of Cherokee politics and diplomacy, which is essential for understanding both the conduct of war and the negotiations for peace. Fabel contradicts Oliphant's assertion that the British military establishment, and especially the commander of British forces during the Cherokee War, Lieutenant Colonel James Grant, were peacemakers, and that Grant ameliorated the harshness of his campaigns in Cherokee country. Fabel also provides compelling evidence that the "scorched earth" campaign by Grant failed to create famine in most of Cherokee country, calling it a "pattern of big efforts achieving small results" (p. 79).
Fabel next turns his attentions to British West
Florida, and especially the so called "small tribes" and mixed towns along
the Mississippi River in the 1760s and 1770s. Here he sheds light
on a much less well known and understood colonial relationship. By
analyzing the actions of minor officials such as British Lieutenant John
Thomas and French Captain Charles Descoudreaux, he demonstrates how "minor
agents at the periphery could guide the course of empire" (p. 105).
Acknowledging the role of European officials is not intended to suggest
that Native Americans were passive, and Fabel emphasizes the ability of
the small tribes to influence relations, suggesting that Indians demonstrated
a pragmatic willingness to forget their pre-1763 hostile relationship with
the British in order to improve their own situation. Native Americans
exploited Anglo-Spanish rivalries and British fears of Indian alliances
such as the "Scioto coalition" (p. 108). He argues that the small
tribes assumed an important role as brokers between Europeans that before
1763 had been held by the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Creeks. On the
whole Fabel provides a valuable glimpse of a heretofore largely ignored
region, although his argument would have been stronger with a clearer impression
of the patterns of life and society in Indian towns. The tantalizing
glimpses and insights he does provide only whet one's appetite for more.
The last section is an analysis of the conflicts
between British settlers and Caribs on and around the Caribbean island
of St. Vincent during the 1760s and 1770s, and particularly the Carib war
of 1772-73. Focusing on the Black Caribs, Fabel provides a brief
introduction to their origins and relations with the British and French.
After 1763 direct British government led to an influx of settlers who were
especially interested in Black Carib lands, which promised to be ideal
for sugar cultivation, and in their efforts to obtain this territory British
settlers instigated war. The ability of settlers to manipulate the
imperial system was demonstrated by the activities of the Commission for
Land Sales on St. Vincent as well as the outbreak of the war itself.
At the same time Fabel illustrates the limits of imperial influence, as
well as the ability of the Black Caribs to successfully resist militarily.
Black Carib resistance proved to be much more effective than the settlers
expected and the negotiated peace that ended the war represented a compromise,
guaranteeing a Black Carib reservation. He concludes that French-Carib
ties which existed before the war were only strengthened as a result, which
was the opposite of one of the key British imperial aims of the war.
As in the cases of the Cherokee conflict and relations with the Mississippi
tribes, the British were forced to accept a compromise that reflected the
influence of Native American groups.
In his conclusion Fabel attempts to account for
a miscellany of additional variables, including the impact of British domestic
politics, and the role of trade and economic policy upon Anglo-Indian relations.
Finally, he suggests several "lessons" learned by all parties as a result
of the Cherokee and Carib wars, and how these would influence the conduct
of future war with the American colonists. The effectiveness of the
navy would lead to an over-estimation of its role in the Revolution, but
of even greater significance, the scornful opinion that men like James
Grant took away with them from their experiences with provincial troops
would encourage a serious underestimation of American military capabilities
in the future.
The greatest weakness in Fabel's study is his
effort to draw larger conclusions on the nature of the British Empire.
His analysis of each region is cogent and well supported, but overall it
remains fragmented, and needs to be more cohesive. A more systematic
exploration of policy and influences in each region linked together within
the body of the text as well as in the conclusion would have helped considerably.
Despite these reservations, this is an excellent study, two thirds of which
covers completely new ground, and is therefore highly recommended.
Copyright 2002 by H-Net, all rights reserved.
H-Net permits the redistribution and reprinting of this work for nonprofit,
educational purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the author,
web location, date of publication, originating list, and H-Net: Humanities
& Social Sciences Online. For other uses contact the Reviews editorial
staff: hbooks@mail.h-net.msu.edu.
[Many thanks to CAC Editor, Dr. Lynne Guitar, for sourcing this review and for securing permission for its reproduction from Andrew Michael, H-Atlantic, on Monday 14 October, 2002]
Letter to the Editor
From: Damon Corrie
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 11:14 AM
To: Letters Editor
Subject: For the Letters Editor
Dear Sir,
please permit me the space to respond in general to my Afrocentric countrymen, for there appears to be a trend whereby Eurocentric 'theft' of Amerindian cultural achievements are condemned while Afrocentric 'theft' of the same is promoted....double standards do little to further harmonious inter-ethnic relations.
I am no expert on African affairs or cultures nor would I pretend to be, the little I know is limited to a few scholarly works and first hand knowledge given to me by African Massai and Xun & Khwe friends I made on the Indigenous Rights training course the 16 of us attended in Greenland in September 2002. Those gentlemen were in the same position as Amerindians in terms of the socio-economic disenfranchisement, territorial dispossession, human rights abuses by occupying security forces, cultural genocide; etc. We discussed the collective achievements of our respective kith & kin and I do not recall a single time when any of us laid claim to any achievement of each other's ancestors - whether tribal or racial. We listened, we learned, and we complimented each other for proudly bearing our individual historical legacies.
I am convinced that prior to Columbus - Scandinavians, Chinese, Africans and Pacific Islanders reached the New World, tangible evidence exists for these and others. But for anyone to say conclusively that any great New World achievement was not done by Amerindians/Native Americans (same Mongoloid race just different tribes) but by any of these other visitors is to engage in Intellectual theft, just as it is for ANY ethnic group to lay claim to ANY OTHERS great achievements. If you say that Egyptians were Negroid and they invented the Pyramids therefore anywhere in the world that Pyramids exist is proof that Negroid peoples created them - you would be very narrow minded indeed, in fact Iraq is home to the oldest Pyramids (the Ziggurats), no two countries Pyramids are alike - and Pyramids exist in every corner of the Globe between certain lines of latitude; it just so happens that the largest Pyramid is in Mexico...furthermore the Egyptian Pyramids were for burials and the Amerindian made Pyramids were for celestial observation and human sacrifice; they were built entirely differently and millennia apart - so to believe that the creators of one gave rise to the other is akin to offering conjecture in place of hard evidence in a court of law.
It is time for all of us 'ethno-specific' (whether we admit to this designation or not) historians to focus on what UNDISPUTEDLY originated in our own ancestral lands and from among our own ethnic groups and highlight these achievements, not take turns in speculation and lay claim to the achievements of others. Every time you say that the Inca, Aztec or Mayan achievements were the result of some other ethnic groups interaction with them - you are exhibiting subtle racism, the inference being that Amerindians could not possibly have achieved that on their own; what you do not like done to yourselves do not do to others.
Just for the record, Corn, Cassava, Potato, Tomato, Squash, Chocolate, Tobacco & Pineapples (among others) were first cultivated and 'domesticated' from regionally endemic native flora species by Amerindians independent of any other ethnic group. Think about it for a minute...we Amerindians were in this Hemisphere for at least 15,000 years before anyone else (Some archaeological evidence triples this figure), do you honestly think that after all that time we would need the expertise of another new-coming culture who never saw the plant species in question until they reached our shores - to teach us about horticulture techniques to cultivate the species in question ? It boggles the mind. Lastly, the Aztec who were Nahuatl speakers are not extinct (neither are the Arawaks, Mayans or Quechua speaking 'Incas') - and mitochondrial DNA analysis conducted by Anthropological geneticists of their genes showed conclusively that the 'Aztecs' were & still are 100% Amerindian, not descendants of any miscegenation real or imagined (read The Origins of Native Americans - evidence from Anthropological genetics ISBN 0 521 59280 1).
Damon Gerard Corrie
Hereditary Chief of the Pan-Tribal Confederacy
of Amerindian Tribal Nations,
Amerindian Historian, authour of 4 books and an
expert on Amerindian Affairs.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Office of the Hereditary Chief
of the Pan-Tribal Confederacy
of Amerindian Tribal Nations
# 13 Highgate Gardens, Wildey,
St. Michael, Barbados WI BH-10
Tel (246) 228 - 0227
Fax (246) 437 - 2018
Website - http://www.pantribalconfederacy.com/confederacy
[Editor's Response: While normally I would not
endorse or reject the contents of any letter, I feel that I must indicate
my agreement with the basic thrust of Mr. Corrie's statement. Unfortunately,
ever since the publication of van Sertima's Afrocentric revisionist history
of the "discovery" the Americas--where the old European protagonists are
simply substituted by African ones, perpetuating Caribbean aboriginals
in the typecast role of mere passive recipients and culturally empty spectators
of other peoples' history--and I here I refer to They Came Before Columbus,
the weight of "scholarship" has led some to take these premises at face
value. In fact, many of the key premises of that book have been solidly
debunked by archaeologists and historians, without much of a substantive
reply to the critiques.
I thus wish to urge readers to examine Kenneth
Feder's Frauds, Myth and Mysteries: Science and Pseudo Science in Archaeology,
which has a website of its own located at http://www.anthropology.ccsu.edu/fraudsweb/frauds.htm
and details about the book are available at http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/076742722x/.
As Samir Amin would say, inversions of Eurocentric history only produce an inverted Eurocentrism, not a response to, or escape from, the binds of colonial discourse. In this vein, the CAC has listed some of these examples of inversion as applied to Caribbean aboriginals, under its "From the Fringe" section of its General resources page. Various websites thus reduce Caribbean aboriginals to the cultural bin of by-products of Europe, Africa, Islam, and even ancient Israel.]
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Readers who wish to respond to, comment, or criticise any of the items contained in this newsletter, are encouraged to send e-mail to the address below. Please indicate specifically what you are responding to and whether or not you wish to have your e-mail message appear in the next issue of the newsletter. Also, please indicate whether or not you wish your e-mail to appear with your name or as "anonymous".
CAC Newsletter
Editor:
Maximilian
C. Forte, Ph.D.
Caribbean
Amerindian Centrelink
Copyright:
2002
mcforte@centrelink.org