Maybe someone can give me some ideas about this: unesco policies on indigenous cultural heritage could be seen like a new colonialist view in the "other" in the present context of globalization. A critical approach to unesco policies on indigenous pepole...any suggestions?
Before we attempt an answer to the question, let's look at
UNESCO's Mission: to protect and promote cultural diversity, encourage intercultural dialogue and enhance linkages between culture and development.
UN definition: Indigenous peoples are descendants of the original people or occupants of lands before these lands were taken over or conquered by others. Many indigenous peoples have maintained their traditional cultures and identities (e.g., way of dressing, language and the cultivation of land). Therefore they have a strong and deep connection with their ancestral territories, cultures and identities.
UNDRIP: The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly on Thursday, 13 September 2007, by a majority of 144 states in favour, 4 votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) and 11 abstentions (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine).
Some possible ways to answer your question is to try to understand
1. Why 4 countries have voted against the declaration and why 11 countries have abstained from voting?
2. What is the impact of 'alien' cultural contact on indigenous people?
Useful links: http://www.unicef.org/policyanalysis/rights/files/HRBAP_UN_Rights_Indig_Peoples.pdf
http://undesadspd.org/IndigenousPeoples/DeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoples.aspx
Lynn Meskell (2013). UNESCO and the Fate of the World Heritage Indigenous Peoples Council of Experts (WHIPCOE). International Journal of Cultural Property, 20, pp 155-174. doi:10.1017/S0940739113000039.
Thank you for answering and for your suggestions. I think that the problem is on what is cultural heritage for indigenous peoples and how to do for keeping these cultures alive in their own therms and concepts. Maybe Unesco policies are fixing indigenous cultures because of the aim to protect them, but where is the development-with-identity? National states are who make the decisions for cultural policies, this maybe could explain your first question, where the States seems to be in dangerous from indigenous rights they voted against the UNDRIP or abstained to vote because of political balance.
Any way the right to free, prior and informed consent is the most important instrument that indigenous people have to control, conserve and develop their territory and it is also for cultural policies, is it respected in the field of indigenous cultural heritage?
Do you know: Vrdoljak, Ana Filipa, 2008. International Law, Museums and the Return of Cultural Objects, Cambridge University Press. On her personal website she has some articles as well.
Dear Fra.
Look at Australia, for example. Before we(=so called civilized) landed on the continent, the indigenous people were more close to Thomas Aquinas' philosophy (I presume?) He hunted when he felt hungry and lived where he liked. After we started 'RANCHING' how many Aboriginals were taken to task in the name of law - for having stolen the cattle or trespassed notified/protected land? How many times were they made unauthorised entities in the society. Well, all of them changed their ways (obviously by force) and today how can we talk about 'indigenous culture?' Can we give them back what they have lost? Try to understand. We are guilty, therefore, we talk about preserving indigenous culture and doing something for them. By doing so we do more harm to them. If we do not try to search for them to preserve their culture, I think half the battle would be won. Modern technology was never a part of any indigenous culture I am aware of. How can we use this modern technology, which is a 'cultural alienation tool' to protect cultures on the fringe?
"Indigenous" come from latin "inde" ("born in"), and "gens" (population). The term itself its a colonialist point of view. But. history doesn´t stop in the spatial mistake of Columbus and the european common sense (XVI century). The term mean many other and powerful things to native people of the Americas. The problem is, what kind of control over its representations (as "ecologic populations", "mistic beliefs", "non modern ways of life") has the "indigenous". Who can say, in what moment, tho whom, what "are" those populations? UNESCO as any NGO could have good purposes, but, the point is the autonomy of indigenous people to agree or disagree to those noble purposes.
Could help
http://www.luguiva.net/articulos/detalle.aspx?id=89
http://www.luguiva.net/articulos/detalle.aspx?id=82
http://plataformasur.org/la-minga-indigena-social-y-popular-avance-cualitativo-hacia-un-nuevo-pais/
http://www.las2orillas.co/los-indigenas-nos-colonizaron-el-cerebro/
Dear Francesco
you should also read the comments on the question on this link as it relates to your question https://www.researchgate.net/post/To_what_extent_is_Indigenous_Peoples_consent_important_in_Social_Impact_Assessment_Environmental_Impact_Assessment_or_Sustainability_studies?_tpcectx=profile_highlights
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Political Science
- International History and Politics
- Globalization