were lucky

they have knifes instead of M16S OR WED ALL BE DEAD

Excellent article. But...

Excellent article. BUT it doesn't highlight sufficiently (in my view) the major lacuna in applying de Soto's views to indigenous communities. For many years I helped finance and implement schemes to give slum-squatters title, and the benefits (for many) were outstanding. Official recognition of the right to be there (end of police raids on slums). Ability to borrow (the "beneficiaries" paid even for their land over time at highly subsidised rates) to construct permanent housing (slum dwellers couldn't, because of government/developer bulldozing). Also, ability to get hooked up to government services (water, improved roads, sanitation -- again, repayment of these was built into the payment scheme). The results were quick and apparent. Densities rose (mor storeys), businesses flourished, health improved, and there were also benefits from project components for womens education, micro credit, etc.). I daresay some initial slum dwellers didn't make it, but many did. The important point is that these slums, which housed the mirgrant masses from the countryside, disappeared "constructively" rather than via the bulldozer. The schemes were highly progressive, and operated within the capitalist framework. Attractive as such schemes were to "enlightened" outsiders, and some residents, they were usually resisted by local power structures, which meant many of them were almost tokenism.De Soto was one of the first in Latin America to champion them there. More power to his elbow.

BUT, the situation of populations living in more remote areas (the Amazon rainfores, the BC rainforest), still with vestiges of their traditional ways of life, is very different. The bull-dozers are coming to gain access to resources of value to "outsiders." The problem is not (necessarily) about giving hope to marginal people without rights who are mired in suffering. Though that exists. If de Soto is correctly quoted that the first step should be to define communal rights, allowing the community to decide whether to move on to some form of private property, this would be progressive. But the danger is that folks will be lured into jumping immediately into private property and rapid alienation of the land -- and destruction of the environment.

Sorry to go on at such length.

Indigenous Capitalists?

Why should indigenous people require land title from the thieves who stole it? Land ownership, which naturally includes “private title,” is a basic human right. All indigenous peoples of the Americas want their lands back. It’s not up to the thieves to decide whether the land that they stole from the rightful owners should be private.

And capitalism has nothing to do with private land ownership since private land ownership existed long before capitalism. Only land robbing hordes equate capitalism with private property in an attempt to politicize a basic human right for the purpose of plunder.

Nice Racket

Awesome.
So we're going to recognize the right of indigenous people to their home while thousands of "Canadians" are homeless.
Whoa.
Pass me the bong.

This article is false

As a critic of the Nisga'a Treaty for 9 years, this article says 11 years after the Nisga'a.......the Final Agreement was signed May 2000. Don't forget, we gave u[p 93% of our ancetral lands for this sellout treaty. In 2012, we don't have Indian Status, we pay income taxes and property taxes on fee simple lands, etc. etc.

No one gave me the right to own my home, I went to the Scotia Bank in Terrace to pay for it and show me papers where the government paid for my home. This is ludicrous. No one decides for me, I always have represented myself, no leader needs to tell me what I may or may not own. Who is is Jules character anyway? He should not be given credit for our sellout Treaty. If we played a role, he is another person to blame for all the flaws..long, very long story.

I don't even think we should be compared to the other tribe down South America..my ancestors looked after this land for hundreds of years, settled close to fishing and hunting grounds and no leader these days should be mentioned, read our Nisga'a history. I received my BA in First Nations Studies from UNBC, a Minor Degree in Political Science and 4 Certificates...believe me, we are a distinct nation and even though Nisga'a Government is not accountable, we still occupy this beautiful God's country and food we get from it. We look forward to men catching oolichans next month, fishing in the summer and picking tons of berries in my beautiful garden..we are truly blessed from above....Cheers!!

glen

"So we're going to recognize the right of indigenous people to their home while thousands of "Canadians" are homeless."

Just like a pig is not a pigeon, having title to a homeland is nothing like individuals being homeless. Don't get hung out to dry on the words. On the other hand, if you want to talk about self-determination....

not hundreds of years

but thousands of years, long before there ever was a word canada. the white people should be forced to
live on reserves while the indigenous people gaze over the valley and rivers from which they hunted and fished for there food..thanks

2 standards

Let us not forget that our governemnt(s) bend over backwards to help natives set up business.
They have free consultations and help with preparing business plans, then financing is expedited for them.
The ony thing we fail to do, is to oversee that they conduct themselves in a way that make their business viable!
I know of a few examples that have been bailed out and re-started several times, while ordinary citizens are left to their own devices should they want to have a go at being self-employed.

globalization is here

“But if we do that, it becomes very easy for the wolf to eat us [sheep] all up one by one."

True enough if you believe people are sheep, which, unless I’m being a bit naieve, Kunchikui still believes. And, if that’s the case, in the greater scheme of things, the wolf will determine the Indigenous South American herd’s quality of life. Just as it is determining the quality of life for Nisga’a and the rest of the capitalist world.

If “the need for development is the one thing everyone seems to agree on”, then having a say in what defines “development”, and whether or not development is synonomous with an improvement in the quality of life, is criitical.

access to self-employment resources

"I know of a few examples that have been bailed out and re-started several times, while ordinary citizens are left to their own devices should they want to have a go at being self-employed."

I'll forego the obvious bail-out comment re: automakers and banks (none of which AFAIK are owned by indigenous peoples) and instead move on to the second (erroneous) statement alive made:

Self-employment assistance for people on EI
http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/epb/sid/cia/grants/self-emp/desc_self-emp.shtml#apply

BC college and other self-employment programs
http://www.beyourownboss.org/programs.htm

I'm sure there's more, but 30 seconds of Googling is all I'm prepared to spend on the subject.

Property as a "Right" = tired, stupid and wrong.

Property as a "right"?
I call BS.

Lets consider how property becomes "yours", pre-law. You make claim to it. You have to defend a geographic area against other people who might want it. They will use violence if necessary to take it - so you require violence to defend against it. So you get a bunch of people together and say "this is ours" and anyone who wants it either has to join your little group of thieves or hook up with a bigger, badder crew than yours and cave in every last one of your heads in.
That's how "property" worked pre-law.

LAW and this ridiculous notion of RIGHTS came a LONG LONG time after cracking open heads did the trick.
Get your shit straight pal. You're living in some weird dream world in which everything is ass-backwards.

Land is never "yours" anymore than a "right" is. One was stolen and retained through violence and brutality, the second was a conveniently individualized "legalization" that diminished the use of an individuals or groups use of force necessary to retain the former. That use of force now resides with the state instead of a bunch of Haida, Frenchmen, Punjabi, etc etc etc.

None of which negates the fact that property is theft.

Interesting article, but two clarifications are needed

First of all, our message for the development of the Indigenous Peoples of the Amazon goes beyond suggesting private or communal property. It is summarized in 6 points:

1)Deficient territorial control: The peoples of the Amazon lack three legal instruments to obtain economic control over their territory: a.Effective property rights (collective and individual) that will enable them to extract from their resources the most surplus value possible; b.business organizations and contracts through which they can control their assets and make deals with other indigenous people or investors; and c.clearly defined mechanisms to be consulted about and help create the laws that regulate their property and businesses.

2)No voice in their own future: Traditional legal instruments, that call for indigenous peoples to be consulted on matters concerning their interests, do not specify the mechanisms to make that happen. There are Peruvian and international laws and initiatives that can provide the missing pieces – if properly adapted to the indigenous context.

3)Unprepared for the flow of investment to the jungle: We need to design strategies to help the indigenous peoples benefit from the flight of international investors toward Third World commodities and land as a result of the debasement of the world’s main currencies and financial instruments.

4)Unaware of recent successes outside Peru: Indigenous leaders from other parts of the world will share their experiences making the transition to the 21st Century globalized economy, without losing their traditions or cultural identity.

5)Marginalization: We need to end the isolation of indigenous communities by creating efficient institutions that connect them to the rest of Peru and the world, without depending only on “cultural brokers” that systematically undermine the opportunities for Peruvians to share information and collaborate economically.

6)The indigenous peoples’ problem is everybody’s problem: We must all understand that the outcome of the crisis in the Amazon will affect the future of the entire country. The decision to tackle these fundamental problems – or postpone their solutions – is likely to determine the course of informality and hundreds of social, environmental, oil, and mining disputes throughout Peru.

Second, to date leaders representing more than 700 of the 1,500 indigenous communities in the Amazon, have publicly manifested that they will participate in the forum being convened by the ILD, because they believe it is essential to find a peaceful solution to the 6 fundamental problems affecting them.

One of these leaders is precisely the Native Chief Ambrocio Uwak Taijin, who stated “De Soto betrayed us” in the article above. Therefore, De Soto´s proposals have made great advances among the native leaders.

ILD Legal Director

A little different view

A very interesting story, one which should bring out some facts about which discussion has been deliberately suppressed on the false grounds that doing so would be "racist". I'll deal here only with the issue of individual and tribal fee-simple ownership of Reserve Lands, which lies at the very base of historical and current FN problems.

All FN peoples, along with many "white" peoples who had lived millennia in isolation, such those in the Balkans, had learned that individual ownership of other than purely personal items, along with aspirations to personal political power, was anathema to peaceful relationships and solidarity within the group. These ills were unknown to Canadian FNs, if not other FNs. Thus, power - via inheritance – along with wealth was held for the tribe by Clans, and their power was mediated through tribal councils.

These situations can be successful only when the groups are completely isolated from incoming new ideas and technologies. Witness our Western and Eastern cultures which have been under continuous change, driven by innovations such as the watermill, Capitalism, and The Pill..

Hence Canadian FN's long-standing charge that our Western cultures are driven by "greed" and their equally long-standing aversion to comprehending the usefulness of accumulated personal Capital. (Capitalism0 Their inheritance of a culture in which day-to-day rather than year-to-year subsistence was / is a practical strategy has led to the recurrent failure of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Federal monies which have been “loaned” to finance commercial ventures such as wild-rice harvesting, cattle-ranching, sawmilling, and canneries, to mention only a few. The White Man's patronising Reserve system and Indian Act has served to perpetuate that culturally derived syndrome. Despite their Crocodile tears, FNs have fought to retain both.

It is a deep-seated belief among pro-native sympathisers that the Reserve system was set up to "force" FNs off the land. Not so. First of all, there was no way - then or even today - that a "communistic" system can freely co-exist within a private enterprise majority. The only way the tribal and cultural systems could be preserved was through the Reserves, the Indian Act, and the laying on of benefits. Had Canadian FNs been given fee simple ownership of land – in any amount – and then left to fend for themselves, with no knowledge of financial matters they would have soon been cheated out of it, or squandered it away, tribal unity lost, and Canadian aboriginals scattered to the winds.
.
continued below.

A little different view - continued

Next time you place the blame for FN problems squarely upon the.European’s shoulders, folks, remember that of ALL the colonising nations, the first to treaty with aboriginal peoples were the British, and have been the ONLY ones to honour them - unlike the US, for example. If you want to cherry-pick events out of history about which to get riled up about, I can offer you a few documented ones about aboriginals.

The saga continues...

It's interesting to see how history can be manipulated and turned to one's advantage. Just one example: before the British, the French made treaties with Aboriginal peoples and those treaties were honored. That being said, all colonizers share the same burden as they are the ones that pushed Aboriginal peoples into reserves, for whatever motive it was. Today we are dealing with those consequences. This is a legal issue, one of human fundamental rights, no less.

This article shows the tension between private and communal ownership of land. But one thing that needs to be remembered is the fact that there is a difference between families living in the slums of Lima and the Indigenous peoples of the Amazon. They are the ones to decide their future, not De Soto, Canadian Chiefs or the Peruvian government.

Peru is now ruled by a government that is open to capitalism and quite opposed to Indigenous rights. Its neighbour, Bolivia, that also shares the Amazon, has a very different approach and Original peoples are now having their own territories called Tierras Originarias de Origen (TCO) and are forging ahead in the autonomy process. Together, on their land, they feel they are stronger than isolated in a world where the capitalist free for all dominates. No wonder that the actual president, Evo Morales, was reelected with a strong majority as the majority of Bolivians are Indigenous.

So, whatever outsiders think about the situation, that doesn't change the fact that it will be those people that will decide their future or the conflicts with governments are likely to escalate. What they need is international support for their fundamental rights, not gurus that will tell them what to do.

From La Paz, Bolivia.

TCO

Sorry for the mistake: They are Tierras Comunitarias de Origen - Original Communal Lands.

Laugh out Loud

Some great comments here. Really nice to see.

First, I wish to say how surprised I was to see an article like this on the Tyee. Honestly, this is what I'd expect to see in the Winnipeg Sun.

Hernado de Soto is a muse for the pro-assimilation, anti-indigenous rights movement---which, for the past couple years, has been floating around between Canada, Peru, Ecuador, India and a few other places.

They love referring to him, even in Winnipeg Sun, because he so effectively re-frames indigenous knowledge to reinforce his personal vision of how things should be...

While it's true that "some" indigenous people historically practiced variations of capitalism, they were far from being "Capitalists" in the modern sense.

I mean, it's like saying all Indigenous People speak English because in the past they had "language". LOL. It's non-sense, just like "Property being a right" as Glenn points out. And that shallow argument by Joseph Quesnel and various others that we need a "revolution in individual rights" --- and model ourselves after colonial society so that we, too, can live "the good life".

All our problems with float away like magic, they argue. We just have to do what they tell us to do.

That sounds very familiar to me.

Last but not least, in case readers don't realize it, the Awajun and Wampis were the ones in Bagua, Peru, where, on June 5, 2009, police opened fire after the People (who had gathered by the thousands) agreed to take down a series of blockades they had erected to defend their collective rights. Recently, the Awajun and Wampis also arrested five employees from a Canadian mining company for trespassing on their territory without their consent.

In other words, the "need for development" by which I mean the vulgar colonial model, is not something that everyone agrees on. And those who are opposed to it are not a simple minority. This pro-captial fringe is the minority. And rightly so, since their propositions are incompatible with the needs, rights, and histories, and perspectives of Indigenous people. One or two examples isolated from the rest of the world does not prove otherwise.

De Soto: indigenous peoples and landless migrants

Hernando de Soto's main points about property rights are something that he has been working on for about 30 years now. I first read El Otro Sendero (The Other Path) in Lima 20 years ago - and was so amazed by De Soto's perception and prescription for insuring property rights for the poor and for the underground economy. Surviving the terrorists' bomb attacks, De Soto has been feted by the elder President Bush and the Fraser Institute, but now with his focus on property rights for indigenous peoples, he has really been moving in another important direction. Best wishes to him and to his ILD crew for their important work!

Glen Murtz

Exactly!
It is my understanding that FN held land in the community, rather than individual ownership. So "allowing" natives to own their onw houses is just another proverbial 'nail in the coffin' of removing native peoples from their history and culture.