This is divisive, dangerous and historically inaccurate

Jun 22, 2017 Letters

Dear Editor,
The debacle over the Commission of Inquiry on Land continues. Citizens are treated to the unattractive spectacle of politicians vying to be champions of the ‘Amerindian’, ‘indigenous’, or ‘first’ peoples’ rights to land depending on their imagined audience.
But decisions about land should not be made on grounds of emotion or political convenience. They should be the result of evidence, reason, justice and fairness.
If Guyana wants to give separate legal rights to ‘indigenous peoples’ including rights to our national territory, we have a right to know why some count as ‘indigenous peoples’ and others do not. The first step is to identify the ‘indigenous peoples.’ Customary international law gives no definition.
ILO 169 suggests criteria but says that ‘self-identification as indigenous or tribal’ is a fundamental criterion. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples took 20 years to negotiate and has no definition because no-one could agree. Anthropologists use ‘indigenous peoples’ to mean people who occupied somewhere before other people arrived as colonists or immigrants – the idea of first in time. ‘Indigenous peoples’ is a controversial and very divisive concept.
In Guyana ‘indigenous peoples’ is used as some sort of politically correct or morally superior substitute for ‘Amerindian peoples.’ This is illogical and intellectually slipshod. ‘Indigenous peoples’ and ‘Amerindian peoples’ are not necessarily the same.
There are Amerindian tribes who entered Guyana during the Dutch and British colonial administrations. The Amerindian Lands Commission Report for example points out that the Arecuna of Paruima migrated to Guyana from Venezuela in the twentieth century. They do not meet the pre-colonial requirement to be ‘indigenous peoples’ of Guyana with a corresponding right to land.
Some claim that the Wapichan are indigenous people with a right to an ancestral Wapichan territory. The South Central Peoples Development Association and the Forest Peoples Programme (UK) have even (with the support of the EU) produced a map of a claimed autonomous ‘Wapichan territory’ covering 2.8 million hectares or nearly 11,000 square miles in the Rupununi – 13% of Guyana’s territory. But the historical record, archaeological research and anthropologists’ evidence establish that the Wapichan migrated to Guyana from Brazil towards the end of the eighteenth century. They do not meet the requirement for a pre-colonial presence.
This so-called ‘Wapichan territory’ appears to be located in what the Venezuelans call their zona en reclamation, on a map produced by the Amerindian Peoples Liberation Front, a group claiming to represent the nine ‘indigenous’ peoples of Guyana. This is dangerous and divisive and threatens to undermine our national integrity.
Guyana does not need to re-invent its history to fit with the tales of conquest and dispossession elsewhere in South America. The Arawaks and Caribs were not victims but willing allies of the Dutch against the African slaves. For centuries Guyana has been a refuge for Amerindians fleeing slavery and later ill-treatment in Venezuela and Brazil.
The moment any group claims land on the basis of their status as ‘indigenous peoples,’ they raise divisive and difficult questions about who was here first. That is why Amerindian land rights have never been about proving who are ‘indigenous peoples.’
The Amerindian Lands Commission recommended land settlements based on Amerindian occupation and use as at 1966. The Amerindian Act 2006 cut the relevant period down to 25 years.
There are other groups in Guyana who are entitled to be considered from the perspectives of fairness and justice. African slaves were here before some Amerindian peoples. Why do African villages have a fraction of the land granted to Amerindian peoples who came after them?
Some Portuguese and some indentured Indians were also here before some Amerindian peoples. What about them?
Do today’s sugar workers, the descendants of indentured Indians, have any claim to any of the land which they and their ancestors worked for so long?
Claims for land based on some unclear ‘indigenous peoples’ status can be divisive and harmful – especially when based on selfish and historically inaccurate assertions. As a country we have one destiny. Yet, we still struggle to unite as one people and form one nation based on equality and justice for all.
Melinda Janki

Latest News

This is divisive, dangerous and historically inaccurate

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 24th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Tennis Association applauds historic GYD $8 billion allocation to the...

Squash Association notes significance of...

Pepsi Hikers and GBTI GCC win Bounty/Antonio’s...

GYMMAF president lauds Transformative G$8 billion...

GOA says 2025 Sports Budget allocation...

Foreign Link Darts Club hosts successful...

Features/Columnists

‘Govt. must come clean on gas-to-energy project’

OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus

Sanctity, sanctity, sanctity – an era of infamy

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

This is divisive, dangerous and historically inaccurate

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 24th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]