Posted on 09/13/2007 1:22:55 PM PDT by processing please hold
The United Nations General Assembly has adopted a non-binding declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples after 22 years of debate.
The treaty sets down protections for the human rights of native peoples, and for their land and resources.
It passed despite opposition from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. They said it was incompatible with their own laws.
There are estimated to be up to 370 million indigenous people in the world.
They include the Innu tribe in Canada, the Bushmen of Botswana and Australia's Aborigines.
Campaigners say they are under greater pressure than ever, as developers, loggers, farmers and mineral extractors move in on their land.
'Important symbol'
The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples calls on countries to give more control to tribal peoples over the land and resources they traditionally possessed, and to return confiscated territory, or pay compensation.
The General Assembly passed it, with 143 countries voting in favour and 11 abstaining.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Does it also mean we can FINALLY settle the “question” of Arabs owning Israel?
I’m trying to recall if any peoples exist today who actually originated in the region before Hebrews.
I think you mean "raze".
L
That's an interesting subject in and of itself. Ask an ABM (Angry Black Man) this one sometime:
If white Americans were buying slaves, who do you suppose it was in Africa actually capturing and selling them?
I ‘spose this means that the afrocentrists will now be advocating pushing “norteafricanos” into the Med?
Oh no, whitey captured them. There were no sales going on. It was just whitey invaded and catching those who wandered into their traps.
You’re right. Oops... Thank you.
What about the "Bushmen of Botswana" who live in a country now ruled by darker skinned Africans?
As I said, it’s only for Whitey.
Anyway, here's a draft of the Declaration: here.
TOLR, have only skimmed the Declaration, but there doesn't seem to be mention of 1492 or specific mention of European displacement of aborigines.
Where did you hear/read what you posted in comment 18?
That building is a blight on our soil.
Does this apply to the indigenous peoples of Europe, who are being overrun by murderous Mahometans, and forced under penalty of law by the PC multi-culti commissars to abandon cherished traditions of their native culture that offend the implacably angry interlopers?
As am I. But I don’t think we are who they have in mind.
No courage. No courage at all.
Then they didn't need to vote on it, did they? Their foot is in the door now. This is only step one. Wait and see.
Bingo.
WTF are we sending money to that POS?
Makes me angry too. More and more they get into our lives.
LOL, it’s sarcasm.
That is how it will be carried out in practice, even if in theory there is no limit. ;-)
By what amounts to a tiny fraction of the European population?
A bit exaggerating--opinion.
Maybe in a decade or so Muslims will be overrunning Europe, but not now.
As others have pointed out though, does this resolution apply to indigenous peoples of Europe who were driven out by other European peoples?
i.e. Wales, Wallonia, and Wallachia are derived from a Germanic word for 'foreign' when Germanic tribes overran those regions, even though the Germanics were the newcomer immigrants.
Or for tribes such as the Ainu in Japan who today are still treated as lesser than 'normal' Japanese, or for native peoples of Anatolia pushed out by the Turks, and on and on and on? (all questions in this post, rhetorical).
One tribe being displaced by another has happened many, many times in history, all across the world, including the Old World.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.