Minorities and Indigenous Populations: Why we have to respect them.
The nation-state has dominated national and international politics nowadays. Since 1815 with the Peace of Westphalia, human communities came together on the basis of cultural, social, historical, etc. similarities and ended up in the world we see today. Some nation-states are still under consolidation, others are in the middle of fragmentation and some others have been in peace since their formation. I am of the idea that borders are just abstract lines, because even before globalisation most, if not all, nation-states faced difficulties while trying to form a common identity and today many still face the problem of not being able to grasp either a sense of belonging or, simply put, form a community that is strong enough.
History has taught the world that nationalism, being carried to its extremes can produce conflicts, and on a larger scale, wars. Today one cannot generalise neither impose patrons (any patron: ethnic, cultural, religious, social, etc.) on certain countries and even regions on the world because some places were diverse since the beginning of their existence as nation-states. Yugoslavia is an example, they started as a diverse country and they were later fragmented for the same reason that inhabitants corresponded to very different and even mutually exclusive sets of characteristics. The example of the Balkan War clearly shows that the State or any other actor within national borders, will not get anywhere by imposing tough and in most cases, authoritarian measures for making its people fit in patterns that, according to them would be 'convenient and the most suitable' for national interest. There are places in which doing that is just impossible. I believe that keeping diversity by respecting our indigenous groups and our national minorities is essential for the country's identity and most importantly, for keeping historical legacy alive an intact. Nobody has ever said that diversity is a bad thing,totally on the opposite, as I have argued in my previous writings about Tibet, diversity makes a nation great. I will dicuss some examples down here so my readers know what I mean.
I will begin with the region that I know best: Latin America. Spain got here in the XVI century and in the case of the South Cone, the indigenous population was almost extermined, there are still very few tribes (such as the Mapuches) who still prevail in the region, most of them live in the Andes mountain range. Since Argentina and Chile were later inhabited by immigrant communities from Italy and Germany, some say that they lack a common identity. I would not say so, because besides of the shared history and language, both Argentina and Chile have respect for the indigenous populations of the Andes. The fact of Argentinians, Chileans and Uruguayans having different physical features (or as we would say here 'just because they are blondies') do not make them different to the rest of us, because their behavioursal and cultural patterns are shared with the rest of the region and, they have traditions that are different to those of their predecessors.
Bolivia and Peru are also unique in many aspects. They both have the legacy of what was the Inca Empire long ago, and most of the inhabitants still keep indigenous features, which remind us of where they come from. In my view, President Evo Morales (Bolivian) is an exception to the rule in Latin America, because he is the second indigenous preisdent that has governed a country in the region. The first one was Benito Juárez, who has born in Oaxaca and governed Mexico in between 1850s and 1870s.
In these countries like in Mexico or Central America, it would be ridiculous to enact policies aganist indigenous populations, because they represent our past and represent our future in many ways. This is why I am a strong critic of all those who discriminate indigenous people in my country and elsewhere in the region. In Mexico, (like in many others countries) there is a mistaken preference for all that looks 'foreign' or to anything that looks 'made elsewhere', there is even a cruel joke in which anybody who gets married with a European, is told to 'make the race better'. I do not see anything wrong in the race which was more progressive on its time than Europeans, let's remember that while Europe was in the Dark Ages, the Aztecs, the Mayas and the Incas (among others, like the Arabs too) were making significative discovers in science and Maths. In this continent very few people turn to see the bad things that colonisers brought us and instead of that, turn to see the remainings of them. Yes, there are blond people in Latin America, most of them come from European origin but that does not make them any better, they are humans.
Keeping and most importantly, respecting our indigenous populations make us remember our origins, and they have many positive things like creativity, respect for nature and numerous agricultural techniques that are still being used nowadays (like chinampas in Mexico). I have to say that knowledge produced during prehispanic times is still very valued and still used. Places in which these people live are amazing because of their respect towards nature, such as Wirikuta or the Huasteca Potosina. I believe these things are inherent to our identity, and should make us proud, they also left us wonderful traditions. This is something that proudly makes us different from the United States and Canada. They still have a bit of their indigenous populations, but most are in very specific areas or 'reserves' as they call them. I do not know if any of those countries still follows any kind of tradition coming from those populations (no, Thanksgiving is not one).
Some consider that Canada and the United States lack a common identity, for both are nations made up from immigrants. This is not bad either though, because it is great to have a bit from every part of the world. This brings me to touch another point: diversity makes a nation great. Shifting our attention away from Latin America, personally I do not understand the logic underlying things like India's authoritarian (and to my eyes, really cruel) policies towards Kashmir and China's similar mechanisms in Tibet. These two are of the many existent examples of why pressing on minorities is useless. Let's be honest: the only thing you get through imposing your views and your culture on others is those 'others' to hate you, a perfect example is how Chechnya has responded to Russia through terrorism.
Let me give my view on the first one, a region with which my contact is a bit recent: Kashmir. To start with, India has always been impressive to me in so many ways, but there is nothing more useless and more horrible than their so called 'caste system'. I do not understand what their problem is with anybody who does not fit with the 'Indian' pattern, I dislike the fact they consider Muslims as 8th class citizens and are victims of mistreat and discrimination, not to mention the Dalits. My country had a similar thing but more than 300 years ago, and those who still have that mindset of bigotry, are laughed at and subject to humiliation. There is a big difference from ruling inequality to actually legitimising it.
I could not believe when I read once that the caste thing was followed outside of India...What is that? I have been told many things about Kashmir, that is dangerous, the most militarised zone on Earth (I've been in the 38th Parallel...I wonder if the sensation is any different) among other tales of horror. After informing myself a bit better, I've seen that fortunately Kashmiris are very different, and that instead of being crushed they should be respected. I am not that sorry to contradict most of what the Indian government would say but, the ones who one should be scared of are them, not Kashmiris. What has been done to them in my opinion is smilar to genocide. What is the point in discriminating them because they are Muslims or because they 'do not look like the rest of us'? I have read some opinions from far right groups of India (Hinduvta) and...to me tal least, they are an insult to logic and common sense.
What is the point in not allowing religious freedom? The fact of being discriminated in the basis of religion or ehtnicity, as far as I am concerned, is also a violation to human rights. I do not believe that Kashmiris should be silenced with violence and curfews (for the record: curfews, as ruled by the national constitution here, are used ONLY when sovereignity is being threteaned, or when we are at war, or when a very tough situation is being given, like in the border with the United States, but not used for putting people into their houses and keeping them back from protesting of something that was unfair. They are supposed to PROTECT civilians, not to silence them...just saying) or what, is the Indian State scared of something?
Following the line of myself not understanding the legitimisation of oppressive measures for making others fit into what the State considers suitable, I believe that Tibet suffers from the same thing. The Communist Party with the measures being put into Tibet (like Han Chinese transfer and the destruction of Lhasa), besides of committing cultural genocide, they are feeding the bad image the rest of the world has been creating of them as inhumane and totally insensitive towards the value of life. Tibet represents one of the very few bastions of cultural legacy that still remain in China. I do not understand what is the point in destroying Lhasa, I understand that the CCP wants to modernise the city, but I would regard as an insult to human memory and conscience destroying a place of more than a thousand years old for transforming the city into a huge Easter egg like Hong Kong or Macau (Easter egg because it looks nice on the outside but it is hollow on the inside).
Tibetans have different traditions and ways of seeing life, for the same reason they should not be imposed the views of the Han just because the CCP sees it as convenient. I realised how different they are because to begin with, they respect life and everything that sorrounds it. Second, they follow a spiritual figure who has given positive things to all those who listen to him and whose teachings represent wisdom for good: His Holiness the Dalai Lama. I believe he is a true leader, because his words are meant for the good of his listeners. The policies of the CCP, as I saw it when I went there, are just meant for the good of a very small portion of China's and world's population in general (the business sector). Lastly, Tibetans have a different character, in my view, they are more caring and conscious of what sorrounds them, (not to mention patient...) and most importantly, they consider collective and historical memory as being of the upmost importance for their cultural legacy. Han Chinese should learn from Tibetans, not the other way around. Chinese need to learn more about conscience, I believe.
I know that there are many other examples of unheard peoples out there. I chose this two because to me they represent a bit of what my original point is. We all should respect our indigenous populations and minorities, because a country would be very boring and useless if we all were the same all crammed inside borders. Besides, diversity can be used for good, like in the case of Malaysia and, nationalism can help but in moderation, because not being self-critical is also a problem on the long term.
Indigenous populations represent our historical legacy, and we should take care of and respect them because they help traditions stay inside collective memory and remind us of our origins. Minorities should be respected too, they can teach many good things to the country and also to the world, but if they are supressed, then only one thing results: hate, and using violence NEVER produces a good outcome. We should never forget than in the end, we all are humans...
History has taught the world that nationalism, being carried to its extremes can produce conflicts, and on a larger scale, wars. Today one cannot generalise neither impose patrons (any patron: ethnic, cultural, religious, social, etc.) on certain countries and even regions on the world because some places were diverse since the beginning of their existence as nation-states. Yugoslavia is an example, they started as a diverse country and they were later fragmented for the same reason that inhabitants corresponded to very different and even mutually exclusive sets of characteristics. The example of the Balkan War clearly shows that the State or any other actor within national borders, will not get anywhere by imposing tough and in most cases, authoritarian measures for making its people fit in patterns that, according to them would be 'convenient and the most suitable' for national interest. There are places in which doing that is just impossible. I believe that keeping diversity by respecting our indigenous groups and our national minorities is essential for the country's identity and most importantly, for keeping historical legacy alive an intact. Nobody has ever said that diversity is a bad thing,totally on the opposite, as I have argued in my previous writings about Tibet, diversity makes a nation great. I will dicuss some examples down here so my readers know what I mean.
I will begin with the region that I know best: Latin America. Spain got here in the XVI century and in the case of the South Cone, the indigenous population was almost extermined, there are still very few tribes (such as the Mapuches) who still prevail in the region, most of them live in the Andes mountain range. Since Argentina and Chile were later inhabited by immigrant communities from Italy and Germany, some say that they lack a common identity. I would not say so, because besides of the shared history and language, both Argentina and Chile have respect for the indigenous populations of the Andes. The fact of Argentinians, Chileans and Uruguayans having different physical features (or as we would say here 'just because they are blondies') do not make them different to the rest of us, because their behavioursal and cultural patterns are shared with the rest of the region and, they have traditions that are different to those of their predecessors.
Bolivia and Peru are also unique in many aspects. They both have the legacy of what was the Inca Empire long ago, and most of the inhabitants still keep indigenous features, which remind us of where they come from. In my view, President Evo Morales (Bolivian) is an exception to the rule in Latin America, because he is the second indigenous preisdent that has governed a country in the region. The first one was Benito Juárez, who has born in Oaxaca and governed Mexico in between 1850s and 1870s.
In these countries like in Mexico or Central America, it would be ridiculous to enact policies aganist indigenous populations, because they represent our past and represent our future in many ways. This is why I am a strong critic of all those who discriminate indigenous people in my country and elsewhere in the region. In Mexico, (like in many others countries) there is a mistaken preference for all that looks 'foreign' or to anything that looks 'made elsewhere', there is even a cruel joke in which anybody who gets married with a European, is told to 'make the race better'. I do not see anything wrong in the race which was more progressive on its time than Europeans, let's remember that while Europe was in the Dark Ages, the Aztecs, the Mayas and the Incas (among others, like the Arabs too) were making significative discovers in science and Maths. In this continent very few people turn to see the bad things that colonisers brought us and instead of that, turn to see the remainings of them. Yes, there are blond people in Latin America, most of them come from European origin but that does not make them any better, they are humans.
Keeping and most importantly, respecting our indigenous populations make us remember our origins, and they have many positive things like creativity, respect for nature and numerous agricultural techniques that are still being used nowadays (like chinampas in Mexico). I have to say that knowledge produced during prehispanic times is still very valued and still used. Places in which these people live are amazing because of their respect towards nature, such as Wirikuta or the Huasteca Potosina. I believe these things are inherent to our identity, and should make us proud, they also left us wonderful traditions. This is something that proudly makes us different from the United States and Canada. They still have a bit of their indigenous populations, but most are in very specific areas or 'reserves' as they call them. I do not know if any of those countries still follows any kind of tradition coming from those populations (no, Thanksgiving is not one).
Some consider that Canada and the United States lack a common identity, for both are nations made up from immigrants. This is not bad either though, because it is great to have a bit from every part of the world. This brings me to touch another point: diversity makes a nation great. Shifting our attention away from Latin America, personally I do not understand the logic underlying things like India's authoritarian (and to my eyes, really cruel) policies towards Kashmir and China's similar mechanisms in Tibet. These two are of the many existent examples of why pressing on minorities is useless. Let's be honest: the only thing you get through imposing your views and your culture on others is those 'others' to hate you, a perfect example is how Chechnya has responded to Russia through terrorism.
Let me give my view on the first one, a region with which my contact is a bit recent: Kashmir. To start with, India has always been impressive to me in so many ways, but there is nothing more useless and more horrible than their so called 'caste system'. I do not understand what their problem is with anybody who does not fit with the 'Indian' pattern, I dislike the fact they consider Muslims as 8th class citizens and are victims of mistreat and discrimination, not to mention the Dalits. My country had a similar thing but more than 300 years ago, and those who still have that mindset of bigotry, are laughed at and subject to humiliation. There is a big difference from ruling inequality to actually legitimising it.
I could not believe when I read once that the caste thing was followed outside of India...What is that? I have been told many things about Kashmir, that is dangerous, the most militarised zone on Earth (I've been in the 38th Parallel...I wonder if the sensation is any different) among other tales of horror. After informing myself a bit better, I've seen that fortunately Kashmiris are very different, and that instead of being crushed they should be respected. I am not that sorry to contradict most of what the Indian government would say but, the ones who one should be scared of are them, not Kashmiris. What has been done to them in my opinion is smilar to genocide. What is the point in discriminating them because they are Muslims or because they 'do not look like the rest of us'? I have read some opinions from far right groups of India (Hinduvta) and...to me tal least, they are an insult to logic and common sense.
What is the point in not allowing religious freedom? The fact of being discriminated in the basis of religion or ehtnicity, as far as I am concerned, is also a violation to human rights. I do not believe that Kashmiris should be silenced with violence and curfews (for the record: curfews, as ruled by the national constitution here, are used ONLY when sovereignity is being threteaned, or when we are at war, or when a very tough situation is being given, like in the border with the United States, but not used for putting people into their houses and keeping them back from protesting of something that was unfair. They are supposed to PROTECT civilians, not to silence them...just saying) or what, is the Indian State scared of something?
Following the line of myself not understanding the legitimisation of oppressive measures for making others fit into what the State considers suitable, I believe that Tibet suffers from the same thing. The Communist Party with the measures being put into Tibet (like Han Chinese transfer and the destruction of Lhasa), besides of committing cultural genocide, they are feeding the bad image the rest of the world has been creating of them as inhumane and totally insensitive towards the value of life. Tibet represents one of the very few bastions of cultural legacy that still remain in China. I do not understand what is the point in destroying Lhasa, I understand that the CCP wants to modernise the city, but I would regard as an insult to human memory and conscience destroying a place of more than a thousand years old for transforming the city into a huge Easter egg like Hong Kong or Macau (Easter egg because it looks nice on the outside but it is hollow on the inside).
Tibetans have different traditions and ways of seeing life, for the same reason they should not be imposed the views of the Han just because the CCP sees it as convenient. I realised how different they are because to begin with, they respect life and everything that sorrounds it. Second, they follow a spiritual figure who has given positive things to all those who listen to him and whose teachings represent wisdom for good: His Holiness the Dalai Lama. I believe he is a true leader, because his words are meant for the good of his listeners. The policies of the CCP, as I saw it when I went there, are just meant for the good of a very small portion of China's and world's population in general (the business sector). Lastly, Tibetans have a different character, in my view, they are more caring and conscious of what sorrounds them, (not to mention patient...) and most importantly, they consider collective and historical memory as being of the upmost importance for their cultural legacy. Han Chinese should learn from Tibetans, not the other way around. Chinese need to learn more about conscience, I believe.
I know that there are many other examples of unheard peoples out there. I chose this two because to me they represent a bit of what my original point is. We all should respect our indigenous populations and minorities, because a country would be very boring and useless if we all were the same all crammed inside borders. Besides, diversity can be used for good, like in the case of Malaysia and, nationalism can help but in moderation, because not being self-critical is also a problem on the long term.
Indigenous populations represent our historical legacy, and we should take care of and respect them because they help traditions stay inside collective memory and remind us of our origins. Minorities should be respected too, they can teach many good things to the country and also to the world, but if they are supressed, then only one thing results: hate, and using violence NEVER produces a good outcome. We should never forget than in the end, we all are humans...
 |
| Wirikuta |
 |
| Mapuche Region |
 |
| Kashmir |
 |
| Tibet |
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario