Indigenous Rights

[Louis Proyect]

Jim Heartfield:
>Indigenous rights have also played a key part in Western policy in the
>third world. Agitating amongst diaffected populations is a tried and
>tested formula for pressurising and destabilising governments that are
>insufficiently subordinate to Western interests. The support given to
>the US for the marsh arabs of the Shatt-al-arab waterways and to the
>Miskito Indians were entirely cynical exercises in destabilising the
>governments of Iraq and Nicaragua at a time when these were an irritant
>to the West. This strategy has a long history, since the agitation by
>the British amongst the Kalahari bushmen and the Arabs under the Ottoman
>Empire. The strategic recognition of indigenous rights, is, all too
>often, simply a component of the West's imperial policy.

Ah, in days of yore I would rise to the challenge and offer the historical
context for the falling-out between FSLN and Miskitu. In reality, the cause
of the Miskitu revolt was economic problems and alienation from Managua
that took place under Somoza. This gave birth to a movement that arose at
exactly the same time as the one in Chiapas. I would just refer you to the
URL I gave earlier today for both the Miskitu and Chiapas article, which
was also printed in Canadian Dimensions, out of the U. of Calgary.

It was actually Jim H.'s super-dogmatic interpretation of Marx on these
questions that inspired me to come up with a proper response. I was equally
bothered by the ridiculous "back to nature" arguments of Kirkpatrick Sale.
In recent months I have been trying to set up a meeting with Blackfoot
activists to get them wired for Internet access, but have been frustrated
by passport and other problems. Once I find a publisher for the book that
is coming out of this, I am going to dedicate to Sale and to Heartfield.
Only their boneheaded analyses could have gotten me steamed up to such an
extent to do the necessary research.

Louis Proyect
(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)