The two namely; Litea Meo-Sewabu and Wheturangi Walsh-Tapiata have to be investigated and we will be formally lodging a complaint to United Nation for their said article in trying to water down Fijians in their native surroundings.
It is obvious that this regime is spear heading such moves so that Fijian in Fiji i.e Indigenous Fijians can be lost in the whole process of what Bainimarama is currently doing to the people of Fiji.
No matter how much they try, it will not get them anywhere.
'Na Dina' Fiji Truth will Prevail in the end.
Fiji Truth Commission Movement.
Fijians don't meet indigenous criteria
Friday, October 08, 2010
FIJIANS may not be considered indigenous under the United Nations definition of indigenous people, a paper on social policy has revealed.
In their presentation on whether development was really a freedom or a cost to cultural heritage, authors Litea Meo-Sewabu and Wheturangi Walsh-Tapiata said Fijians failed to be identified as indigenous because Fijians remained the dominant group.By United Nations standards, indigenous people developed on their own territories and formed non-dominant sectors of society. Indigenous people were determined to preserve their ancestral territories.
"We need to encompass the learning of the new while not forgetting the knowledge of our ancestors and the cultural practices of our societies," they said.
"The influences of politics, education and media apparent in our villages and communities raise questions about development as freedom.
"Social policies aspire to achieve wellbeing.
"These polices are often imposed on those at grassroots community level and yet it is these very people who often face the brunt of globalisation and pluralism, and not protected culturally or socially."
Social policy, they said, were often based on European philosophies and values with indigenous communities expected to conform to them. "International declarations and conventions are only relevant to villages if they know about them, if they know how to effectively use them and if they see them as having any relevance to their communities," they said.
"Development needs to occur but is it at the cost of people's freedom? Freedom in this context meaning the ability for villagers to enjoy life and fully participate within their social structures," the pair said.
And more...
Liberated
TRADITIONAL practices can evolve but if it is economically viable, then it needs to ensure that people are liberated, said authors Litea Meo-Sewabu and Wheturangi Walsh-Tapiata. Speaking on social policy at a three-day conference, the duo said eventhough income was generated, women felt oppressed. Women earned income but did not feel liberated. Development programs should ensure people live the life they truly value.
Under siege
TRADITIONAL leadership is under threat because of the imbalance in the village structure, participants from Massey University in New Zealand said. Litea Meo-Sewabu and Wheturangi Walsh-Tapiata said villagers were taken for granted in the face of development projects. In their paper on social policy, the pair expressed concern at the continued rapid loss of cultural heritage in the name of development. "Whose development," the two said.
"ILO Convention 169 is the only legally binding international instrument that specifically addresses indigenous peoples’ rights.In the Pacific, only Fiji has ratified it".
ReplyDeleteUN report urges France to ratify ILO convention on indigenous people’s rights
Posted at 03:29 on 24 September, 2010 UTC
A UN report has criticised France’s policy towards indigenous people, urging Paris to ratify Convention 169 of the International Labour Organisation.
A Geneva meeting of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommended that the French state recognise the collective rights of indigenous peoples.
It says by refusing to register the rights of indigenous peoples as constitutional principles, France keeps these people in a social, economic and cultural stalemate.
It says this means that France continues to evade the issue of fundamental rights essential to their survival in terms of ownership and use of ancestral lands and resources, civil and political liberties.
Convention 169 is the only legally binding international instrument that specifically addresses indigenous peoples’ rights.
In the Pacific, only Fiji has ratified it.
News Content © Radio New Zealand International
If you read the whole paper you will realise that the discussion is for indigenous rights and the need to protect our rights as Fijians. What has been reported and being discussed is in contrast with what the paper is about and taken out of context. This is about working together to question some ideologies that are not conducive to our Fijian values and our wellbeing !!! In the case of social policy we need to advocate for policies that protects our culture and our itaukei heritage.
ReplyDeleteVinaka @ Anonymous 5.07p.m. I have no reason to doubt you so it'll be wonderful if you could send us a link to the whole paper so we can have a better read for ourselves the propositions advocated by the two women.
ReplyDeleteBtw what do you think of the fact that Fiji is the only Pacific Island State to have ratified the ILO Convention 169 (back in 1998)- a legally binding international treaty that specifically targets the advancement of the rights of indigenous peoples?
Bula vinaka,
ReplyDeleteI have made my comments on luvei viti and matavuvale !!! Damage control everywhere as the title in the Fiji Time is totally misleading and is a cut and paste version of the paper !!
What is being debated is only a small portion of the paper -the definition of indigenous-it is a highly contested one accordindg to a UN fact sheet- “It is estimated that there are more than 370 million indigenous people spread across 70 countries worldwide. Practicing unique traditions, they retain social, cultural, economic and political characteristics that are distinct from those of the dominant societies in which they live. Spread across the world from the Arctic to the South Pacific, they are the descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region at the time when people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived. The new arrivals later became dominant through conquest, occupation, settlement or other means.”
Yes we had new arrivals colonisers, etc but they remained the minority…these definitions need to be questioned to be inclusive of those of us colonised yet remain dominant or the majority ethnicity within our countries such as many Pacific Island nation-unlike Maori and so many other nations who fit this definition.
We choose Mason Durie's definition becuase it is inclusive of what matters as indigenous population rather than as colonised people. Hope this clears the air a bit and when you read the paper you will understand why we have adopted Durie’s definition of Indigeneity as it encompasses our connection to the land or vanua,our relationships, etc… luvei-viti has googled me and will have my email address. Would love to send you the paper and have further discussions !!!
Litea Meo-Siwabu,
ReplyDeleteWas your work peer reviewed? Did you think for one minute that you will get backlash as whats appearing here? Whatever the situation, this incident is very similar to one that appeared about Pacific islanders in NZ as draining the economy. The writer like your yourself was from Massey University. It caused a big reactions. Your paper has done the same and yes I want answers as well. You presented at a time that things are just so raw in Fiji. What a topic to have picked on regardless of your intention and to present in Fiji knwoing full well that Chiefs are being silenced, Fijians are being given a political party's name of 'Taukei'/Aborigenes which is pathetic. These are some thoughts that comes to mind which obviously had been overlooked. No matter what you say now the damage has been done and it is for you to try and repair.
Sorry!!
Lewe ni Vanua mai Viti.