Indigenous Cultures in Indonesia Today

In modern society the question of why the aboriginal population receives benefits often arises. Much of today’s youth does not understand that the Native American people were often stripped of their rights in the past in order to gain these advantages. Two main incidents were established in the Aboriginal history, the first was the treaties that spread across Canada and the second incident was the Indian Act of 1876. The main difference between the Indian Act and treaties were the aboriginal’s role in the decision-making. Treaties allowed for a compromise between the Natives and the government that allowed for benefits on both ends whereas the Indian act

The rights and freedoms of Aboriginal people have changed significantly during the 20th century after facing many years of neglect and inequalities. In that time, change in indigenous rights and freedoms was brought about as a result of government policies, political activism and legal changes.

For the native title act to become seen as a law there where particular rules that must stay intact. This peoples right and interests to be possessed and recognised under the traditional laws currently acknowledged

Cole and Foster (2002) describes how many of the Native environmental justice struggles were focused around land and environmental exploitation (p. 26), both of which can be seen with the case of clear cutting in the Grassy Narrows community (Keewatin v Minister of Natural Resources, 2011), as well as with the issues surrounding the case of mercury pollution (Grassy Narrows and Islington Indian Bands Mercury Pollution Claims Settlement, 1986). This is an environmental justice issue because the Grassy Narrows people continually have to deal with environmental racism. Both of the examples mentioned above, along with the fact that they are still battling out in court their right to clean water and harvesting rights that sustains their livelihood (Keewatin v. Ontario Natural Resources, 2013) show how indigenous communities are still facing environmental racism in Canada.

The Canadian Government has been faced with a decision that could destroy an already delicate relationship with the Indigenous Canadians. There have been several pipeline expansion proposals to increase the production and extraction of oil throughout Canada and the U.S. The primary factor delaying the Canadian Government from starting these projects is the Indigenous people. With promises by the newly elected federal Liberal government and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it has outlined the importance of the Indigenous peoples’ rights when it comes to natural resource extraction that affects their land.

There has been a great deal of contention over Aboriginal Rights in Canada. Much of this conflict can be said to stem from the differences in both the philosophy and cultural systems of Aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, with much of it originating from the time of the original European settlement of Canada (UBC Law, 2009). The focus of this conflict has been primarily on the rights to land, sea and resources, as well as how the law is to apply to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada (UBC Law, 2009).

On the late 1960s Several arguments against indigenous practices in the name of the "public good" were carried out without any discretion. Thanks to the "AIRFA" many of these mostly bureaucratic

In establishing an act, the stakeholder’s positions would need to be considered in order to ensure an equitable legislation for the majority of society. Stakeholders recognised by the law include: All registered native title bodies corporate in relation to land or waters in the area (Austlii: 1993). Pastoralists involved in relation to current land owners. Government bodies; influence the execution of laws and policies on members of society. Once a decision is passed, it can be used as precedent in future cases and therefore the decisions passed must have due consideration. An organisation that educates society on the issues of Indigenous

For example, in New Brunswick, infringed on Mi’gmaq and Maliseet lands by the government granting J.D. Irving 20% crown land. In 2014, seven Mi’gmaq communities in New Brunswick oppose these grants and have filled a law suit against the province (Poitras and White, 2016). Not only are these infringements on the land but also endanger the ecosystem in numerous ways that directly affect Mi’gmaq traditional practices, such as, hunting moose, deer and the ecosystem as a whole. This is nothing new in Mi’gma’gi, there is this underlying belief that Indigenous peoples do not have rights to the land, and that colonial myth is still alive and kicking, as can be seen with the treatment by the Canadian State to Indigenous

The provincial government’s failure to properly consult with the Mi’kmaq demonstrates how governments tend to favor economic development over the wellbeing of the people. The health of Indigenous Peoples is related to the health of their surrounding environments. What happens in these spaces affects them greatly. Because of their strong relationship with the environment, it is therefore important for Indigenous Peoples to be involved in decision-making and policy development in their communities. According to Black and McBean (2016), “Indigenous-centered policy frameworks should: recognize Indigenous knowledge, recognize Indigenous Peoples’ inherent right to self-determination, use inclusive and integrative knowledge systems, rely on community-based participatory approaches, and use circular and holistic viewpoints” (p. 12). In my research, I will explore how decision-making and participation should be done according to the Mi’kmaq

Indians in brazil still don't have proper ownership rights to their land (the Brazilian government refuses to give tribes land ownership, even though they have signed an international law ) .The Brazilian government is currently debating a bill which, if approved, will permit mining in indigenous territories, which will indefinitely harm Yanomami tribe and several other remote tribes living within the Brazilian amazon.The Yanomami have not been properly consulted about their views and have little access to information about the harm large scale mining would have to them and their environment.

In accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ principle of free, prior, and informed consent, respect the right of Indigenous peoples to say no to development on their territory.

Indigenous people, the whistleblowers in this situation, exposing the pollution and destruction of the environment that they see around them, are very committed to and believe strongly in the protection of and the blessings of nature. They are an example of complicating evidence to the binary about dominance and submission: it is not all people who exact their dominance and their dangerous economic practices on nature, it is singularly the people who are using and abusing nature as a part of their economic growth and development. Ultimately, people who become protectors of the land, and who fight against the ways of the economically strong will be nature’s answer to resisting human domination. Industry relies heavily on natural resources, and so when the humans of the world do not allow industry to exploit nature for their own gain, the binary between dominance and submission surrounding the actions of humans will be

the hands of businessmen, laying everything out on the market. Unfamiliar with the ways of politics and economics, tribal communities would initially be supportive of the idea that they finally have the land to themselves and may be able to uses it without governmental surveyance. In many cases, mismanagement of business lead to dead ends and bankrupcies. Heavy in dept, the rights to the land goes to creditors ready to expoit. In a particular case, the Navajo Forest Products Industry (NFPI), who occupied forest land that was almost depleted of old growth, conducted logging of younger trees until the forest was devastated. Normally, such plans would have to go through Washington’s Bureau of Indian Affairs via EIS, ESA, etc. to meet several requirements prior to approval. According to BIA’s reasoning, NFPI was exempted from having to conduct an audit or EIS.

This webpage outlines the discussion of the 2014 United Nations (UN) world conference on indigenous peoples. It brings together in succinct detail the outcomes and objectives, promoting the implementation and advancement of Indigenous peoples rights. The Human Rights Commission mentions only the UN which could suggest bias. However, the UN is made up of a multitude of organisations and governing bodies that give the source authority.