Bylined to: Kenneth T. Tellis
The United States of America has the gall to call Venezuela a dictatorship?
VHeadline.com guest commentarist Kenneth T. Tellis writes:
http://www.vheadline.com/
A recent vote at the United Nations on aboriginal rights was approved by 143 to 4. The four countries being Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand, voted against the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Chief, Phil Fontaine, First Nations National Chief, called it a slap in the face for all indigenous peoples.
Just compare the attitude of Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand towards aboriginal peoples in their own lands, and note the difference.
Look at Venezuela, where strides have been made by aboriginal peoples, because of Hugo Chavez Frias’ programs to take them out of their poverty and let them also enjoy what the Venezuela has to offer all its citizens.
Then go to Bolivia, Evo Morales the first indigenous president in its history has made sure that the indigenous peoples of Bolivia are given every opportunity to take part in the benefits of democracy and take part in government, rights that were denied them for centuries, by the Spanish and others.
Just consider that since May 31, 1961, when the Republic of South Africa became a pariah, because of its apartheid laws that restricted the rights of its indigenous peoples. The country that was in the forefront to have sanctions placed on South Africa was Canada, which today has become part of a group of nations that want indigenous peoples to be treated in the same way that South Africa treated its indigenous peoples by its apartheid laws.
There is clearly no difference in their thinking to those of the Afrikaners who brought in apartheid yesterday, is there?
Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US, now want the indigenous peoples to be considered chattel.
But just consider the statement made by Canadian Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl: that the declaration “unfortunately” was too broad and could be in conflict with existing Canadian statutes.
Did Canada and the other countries ever consider that the Republic of South Africa also had statutes that might come in conflict with the removal of the apartheid laws?
If so, then why not?
Unless, as should be noted that the above nations part of the colonial hegemony of yesterday.
Today, as odd as it might seem, both Bolivia and Venezuela have indigenous people as Heads of State.
In the case of Venezuela the sifrinos were responsible for the indigenous peoples not having any rights.
Yet in Canada, it is the Canadien/Canadienne who is similar to the sifrinos of Venezuela that do not want the indigenous peoples to have equal rights with themselves. Canada’s Laws have created too many privileges for the Canadiens/Canadiennes by amending the Constitution yet is quite unwilling to do the same for its First Nations (indigenous peoples).
If amending the Constitution for the Canadien did not come into conflict with Canada’s existing laws, why should amending the Constitution to include changes for the Indigenous Peoples make any difference either?
There is something here which is quite glaring. That the First Nations of Canada do not have their rights protected, while the Canadien minority does. It’s all a question of discrimination being passed off as the law of the land, like apartheid.
Now, we can see that it is Venezuela and Bolivia that are democracies, while Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand certainly are not.
Then of course the United States has the gall to call Venezuela a dictatorship?
Perhaps, that is the moot point ... there is no contest here, to which nations constitute democracies, and which are lacking it altogether.
Kenneth T. Tellis
kenttellis@rogers.com
http://www.vheadline.com/tellis
A recent vote at the United Nations on aboriginal rights was approved by 143 to 4. The four countries being Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand, voted against the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Chief, Phil Fontaine, First Nations National Chief, called it a slap in the face for all indigenous peoples.
Just compare the attitude of Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand towards aboriginal peoples in their own lands, and note the difference.
Look at Venezuela, where strides have been made by aboriginal peoples, because of Hugo Chavez Frias’ programs to take them out of their poverty and let them also enjoy what the Venezuela has to offer all its citizens.
Then go to Bolivia, Evo Morales the first indigenous president in its history has made sure that the indigenous peoples of Bolivia are given every opportunity to take part in the benefits of democracy and take part in government, rights that were denied them for centuries, by the Spanish and others.
Just consider that since May 31, 1961, when the Republic of South Africa became a pariah, because of its apartheid laws that restricted the rights of its indigenous peoples. The country that was in the forefront to have sanctions placed on South Africa was Canada, which today has become part of a group of nations that want indigenous peoples to be treated in the same way that South Africa treated its indigenous peoples by its apartheid laws.
There is clearly no difference in their thinking to those of the Afrikaners who brought in apartheid yesterday, is there?
Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US, now want the indigenous peoples to be considered chattel.
But just consider the statement made by Canadian Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl: that the declaration “unfortunately” was too broad and could be in conflict with existing Canadian statutes.
Did Canada and the other countries ever consider that the Republic of South Africa also had statutes that might come in conflict with the removal of the apartheid laws?
If so, then why not?
Unless, as should be noted that the above nations part of the colonial hegemony of yesterday.
Today, as odd as it might seem, both Bolivia and Venezuela have indigenous people as Heads of State.
In the case of Venezuela the sifrinos were responsible for the indigenous peoples not having any rights.
Yet in Canada, it is the Canadien/Canadienne who is similar to the sifrinos of Venezuela that do not want the indigenous peoples to have equal rights with themselves. Canada’s Laws have created too many privileges for the Canadiens/Canadiennes by amending the Constitution yet is quite unwilling to do the same for its First Nations (indigenous peoples).
If amending the Constitution for the Canadien did not come into conflict with Canada’s existing laws, why should amending the Constitution to include changes for the Indigenous Peoples make any difference either?
There is something here which is quite glaring. That the First Nations of Canada do not have their rights protected, while the Canadien minority does. It’s all a question of discrimination being passed off as the law of the land, like apartheid.
Now, we can see that it is Venezuela and Bolivia that are democracies, while Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand certainly are not.
Then of course the United States has the gall to call Venezuela a dictatorship?
Perhaps, that is the moot point ... there is no contest here, to which nations constitute democracies, and which are lacking it altogether.
Kenneth T. Tellis
kenttellis@rogers.com
http://www.vheadline.com/tellis
Message from the author:
Brenda,
Thank you for publishing my article from VHeadline in Venezuela. I think a lot of us have more in common than we dare to believe. All I can say, is, keep up the pressure and the good work, because time we tell if we will succeed in our struggle.
Regards!
Ken
Brenda,
Thank you for publishing my article from VHeadline in Venezuela. I think a lot of us have more in common than we dare to believe. All I can say, is, keep up the pressure and the good work, because time we tell if we will succeed in our struggle.
Regards!
Ken
To read more comments:
If you are scrolling down the Censored Blog homepage, click on "comments" below. If you are reading from the individual link, the comments will appear.
Censored Blog, official statements from Indigenous on Declaration:
4 comments:
Unfortunately, what you've discussed here is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the countries in question are democracies or not. While I am appalled by the no votes and encouraged by Venezuela's efforts, the fact remains that what defines a 'democracy' is that government is based on majority rule, and it's nothing more than inflammatory nonsense to start accusing the countries in question of being undemocratic solely on the basis of this issue.
Unfortunately, what you've discussed here is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the countries in question are democracies or not. While I am appalled by the no votes and encouraged by Venezuela's efforts, the fact remains that what defines a 'democracy' is that government is based on majority rule, and it's nothing more than inflammatory nonsense to start accusing the countries in question of being undemocratic solely on the basis of this issue.
Venezuela is truly a democracy, because its 80% Indeginous population voted and elected its president. Can that be said of the the U.S. or Canada? Certainly not! Because it would be a deliberate lie.
Unfortunately, there will always be combative idiots like "Anonymous" who will attempt to muddy the playing field whenever steps are taken to level it.
Democracy as "majority rule" has very little meaning unless there is at least some mechanism for acknowledging the political will of all the peoples it affects. If democracy could be reduced to "the rule of the majority," then a majority population could act with impunity against its minority populations, killing them, taking their resources, forcing them into slavery, restricting their movement, and still be called a "democratic." I'm sure that's not what you mean by "democracy," is it, Anonymous?
Nor is it said anywhere here that these countries are undemocratic "solely on the basis of this issue," which is your invention, Anonymous. Just because other undemocratic practices of these four countries aren't mentioned in this particular article, that doesn't mean they don't exist or don't have a direct bearing on the decision to call them "undemocratic."
And, oh, gosh, sorry you find the language "inflammatory." Why don't you get out of your armchair and into the streets, face down some billy clubs, tazers and mace in the defense of your basic human rights; then come back and we can have your abstract discussion over this or that definition of democracy.
Post a Comment