Columbus Returns
Palash Biswas
Contact: Palash C Biswas, C/O Mrs Arati Roy, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 91-033-25659551
Email: palashbiswaskl@gmail.com
Columbus returns. Columbus has the single point agenda to kill the indigenous people worldwide as he killed some five hundred years back.
Columbus happens to be the Post Modern manu Maharaj. The icon of Hindu zionist white Galaxy Imperialism Columbus happens to be Corporate now. The Phenomenon of Genocide is corporate. It is ultimate silencer as the indigenous people, always deprived of knowledge, is defeated in a war of Information. The History of Genocide repeats itself in every part of this Globe.
The Genocide is Iconised! It is Open Market. It is neoliberalism. It is fashion. It is reality show. It is TV clipping, Print Media, Net, Mobile,fashion,style,brand and vogue ultimate. Our anchestors could not resist , neither we may!
Millions of indigenous people lived in the Americas when the 1492 voyage of Christopher Columbus began a historical period of large-scale European contact with the Americas. European contact with what they called the "New World" led to the European colonization of the Americas, with millions of emigrants (willing and unwilling) from the "Old World" eventually resettling in the Americas. While the population of Old World peoples in the Americas steadily grew in the centuries after Columbus, the population of the American indigenous peoples plummeted. The extent and causes of this population decline have long been the subject of controversy and debate. The 500th anniversary of Columbus's famous voyage, in 1992, drew renewed attention to claims that indigenous peoples of the Americas had been the victims of ethnocides ( i.e. the destruction of a culture).
Columbus strated from Atlantic Coast to get India. He got America. The rulers established that he was the man who invented America. Though America existed with high level Maya and Inca and red Indian civilisations. Columbus destroyed everything without any weapon of Mass destruction. He exercised genocides without any missile, without any atom bomb!
Now the Columbus has got full control on World affairs. It is total dominance in the space. Nature raped and Humanity annihilated. He robbed natural resources. Now they rob everything we have!
Our ancestors did not welcome Columbus. Though they could not resist the destiny of eternal slavery.
We welcome columbus everywhere. Latin America resists. Latin America which was the killing field , a free hunting ground for Sovereign Columbus. Our Civil Society is a coommitted ally of the Sovereign Columbus now. We have surrended political borders, cultural roots, mother languages, national identity, production system, economy, sovereignity, freedom, democracy, humanity, human and civil rights!
The term indigenous peoples has no universal, standard or fixed definition, but can be used about any ethnic group who inhabit the geographic region with which they have the earliest historical connection. However, several widely-accepted formulations, which define the term "Indigenous peoples" in stricter terms, have been put forward by prominent and internationally-recognised organizations, such as the United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank. Indigenous peoples in this article is used in such a narrower sense.
Drawing on these, a contemporary working definition of "indigenous peoples" for certain purposes has criteria which would seek to include cultural groups (and their descendants) who have an historical continuity or association with a given region, or parts of a region, and who formerly or currently inhabit the region either:
before its subsequent colonization or annexation; or
alongside other cultural groups during the formation of a nation-state; or
independently or largely isolated from the influence of the claimed governance by a nation-state,
And who furthermore:
have maintained at least in part their distinct linguistic, cultural and social / organizational characteristics, and in doing so remain differentiated in some degree from the surrounding populations and dominant culture of the nation-state.
To the above, a criterion is usually added to also include:
peoples who are self-identified as indigenous, and/or those recognised as such by other groups.
Note that even if all the above criteria are fulfilled, some people may either not consider themselves as indigenous or may not be considered as indigenous by governments, organizations or scholars.
Other related terms for indigenous peoples include aborigines, aboriginal peoples, native peoples, first peoples, first nations and autochthonous (this last term having a derivation from Greek, meaning "sprung from the earth"). Indigenous peoples may often be used in preference to these or other terms, as a neutral replacement where these terms may have taken on negative or pejorative connotations by their prior association and use. It is the preferred term in use by the United Nations and its subsidiary organizations.
Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples
What are the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples?
Human Rights are universal, and civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights belong to all human beings, including indigenous people. Every indigenous woman, man, youth and child is entitled to the realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on equal terms with others in society, without discrimination of any kind. Indigenous people and peoples also enjoy certain human rights specifically linked to their identity, including rights to maintain and enjoy their culture and language free from discrimination, rights of access to ancestral lands and land relied upon for subsistence, rights to decide their own patterns of development, and rights to autonomy over indigenous affairs.
The Human Rights at Issue
The human rights of indigenous people and peoples are explicitly set out in the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No. 169), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and other widely adhered to international human rights treaties and Declarations. They include the following indivisible, interdependent and interrelated human rights:
The human right to freedom from any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on their indigenous status which has the purpose or effect of impairing the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The human right to freedom from discrimination in access to housing, education, social services, health care or employment.
The human right to equal recognition as a person before the law, to equality before the courts, and to equal protection of the law.
The human right of indigenous peoples to exist.
The human right to freedom from genocide and 'ethnic cleansing'.
The human right to livelihood and work which is freely chosen, and to subsistence and access to land to which they have traditionally had access and relied upon for subsistence.
The human right to maintain their distinctive spiritual and material relationship with the lands, to own land individually and in community with others, and to transfer land rights according to their own customs.
The human right to use, manage and safeguard the natural resources pertaining to their lands.
The human right to freedom of association.
The human right to enjoy and develop their own culture and language.
The human right to establish and maintain their own schools and other training and educational institutions, and to teach and receive training in their own languages.
The human right to full and effective participation in shaping decisions and policies concerning their group and community, at the local, national and international levels, including policies relating to economic and social development.
The human right to self-determination and autonomy over all matters internal to the group, including in the fields of culture, religion, and local government.
Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples
What are the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples?
Human Rights are universal, and civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights belong to all human beings, including indigenous people. Every indigenous woman, man, youth and child is entitled to the realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on equal terms with others in society, without discrimination of any kind. Indigenous people and peoples also enjoy certain human rights specifically linked to their identity, including rights to maintain and enjoy their culture and language free from discrimination, rights of access to ancestral lands and land relied upon for subsistence, rights to decide their own patterns of development, and rights to autonomy over indigenous affairs.
The Human Rights at Issue
The human rights of indigenous people and peoples are explicitly set out in the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No. 169), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and other widely adhered to international human rights treaties and Declarations. They include the following indivisible, interdependent and interrelated human rights:
The human right to freedom from any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on their indigenous status which has the purpose or effect of impairing the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The human right to freedom from discrimination in access to housing, education, social services, health care or employment.
The human right to equal recognition as a person before the law, to equality before the courts, and to equal protection of the law.
The human right of indigenous peoples to exist.
The human right to freedom from genocide and 'ethnic cleansing'.
The human right to livelihood and work which is freely chosen, and to subsistence and access to land to which they have traditionally had access and relied upon for subsistence.
The human right to maintain their distinctive spiritual and material relationship with the lands, to own land individually and in community with others, and to transfer land rights according to their own customs.
The human right to use, manage and safeguard the natural resources pertaining to their lands.
The human right to freedom of association.
The human right to enjoy and develop their own culture and language.
The human right to establish and maintain their own schools and other training and educational institutions, and to teach and receive training in their own languages.
The human right to full and effective participation in shaping decisions and policies concerning their group and community, at the local, national and international levels, including policies relating to economic and social development.
The human right to self-determination and autonomy over all matters internal to the group, including in the fields of culture, religion, and local government.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1510/is_n73/ai_11718005
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Population overview
Estimates of how many people were living in the Americas when Columbus arrived have varied tremendously; 20th century scholarly estimates ranged from a low of 8.4 million to a high of 112.5 million persons. Given the fragmentary nature of the evidence, precise pre-Columbian population figures are impossible to obtain, and estimates are often produced by extrapolation from comparatively small bits of data. In 1976, geographer William Denevan used these various estimates to derive a "consensus count" of about 54 million people, although some recent estimates are lower than that. [1] On an estimate of approximately 50 million people in 1492 (including 25 million in the Aztec Empire and 12 million in the Inca Empire), the lowest estimates give a death toll of 80% at the end of the 16th century (8 million people in 1650 [2]). Latin America would only attain this level at the turn of the 19th century, with 17 million in 1800 [2]; 30 million in 1850 [2]; 61 million in 1900 [2]; 105 million in 1930 [2]; 218 million in 1960 [2]; 361 million in 1980 and 563 million in 2005 [2]. In the last thirty years of the 16th century, the Mexican population highly decreased to attain the low level of 1 million people in 1600 [2]. The Maya population is today estimated at 6 million, which is the same level as at the end of the 15th century [2]. In what is now Brazil, the indigenous population has declined from a pre-Columbian high of an estimated 4 million to some 300,000 (1997).
Historian David Henige has argued that many population figures are the result of arbitrary formulas selectively applied to numbers from unreliable historical sources, a deficiency he sees as being unrecognized by several contributors to the field. He believes there is not enough solid evidence to produce population numbers that have any real meaning, and characterizes the modern trend of high estimates as " pseudo-scientific number-crunching." Henige does not advocate a low population estimate; rather, he argues that the scanty and unreliable nature of the evidence renders broad estimates suspect, and that "high counters" (as he calls them) have been particularly flagrant in their misuse of sources. [3] Although Henige's criticisms are directed against some specific instances, other studies do generally acknowledge the inherent difficulties in producing reliable statistics given the almost complete lack of any hard data for the period in question.
This population debate has often had ideological underpinnings. Low estimates were sometimes reflective of European notions of their own cultural and racial superiority, as historian Francis Jennings has argued: "Scholarly wisdom long held that Indians were so inferior in mind and works that they could not possibly have created or sustained large populations." At the other end of the spectrum, some have argued that contemporary estimates of a high pre-Columbian indigenous population are rooted in a bias against aspects of Western civilization and/or Christianity. Robert Royal writes that "estimates of pre-Columbian population figures have become heavily politicized with scholars who are particularly critical of Europe often favoring wildly higher figures." [4]
Since civilizations rose and fell in the Americas before Columbus arrived, the indigenous population in 1492 was not necessarily at a high point, and may have already been in decline. Indigenous populations in most areas of the Americas reached a low point by the early twentieth century, and in a number of cases started to climb again. [5]
[edit] Pre-Columbian Americas
Anthropologists and population geneticists agree that the bulk of indigenous American ancestry can be traced to Ice Age migrations from Asia via the Bering land bridge, although the possibility of migration by watercraft along coastal routes or ice sheets is increasingly viewed as a viable complement to this model.
[edit] Depopulation from disease
- See also: Smallpox epidemics in the Americas
The earliest European immigrants offered two principal explanations for the population decline of the American natives. The first was the brutal practices of the Spanish conquistadores, as recorded by the Spanish themselves, most notably by the Dominican friar Bartolomé de las Casas, whose writings vividly depict atrocities committed on the natives (in particular the Taínos) by the Spanish. The second explanation was a perceived divine approval, in that God had removed the natives as part of His divine plan in order to make way for a new Christian civilization. Many natives of the Americas viewed their troubles in terms of religious or supernatural causes. Scholars now believe that, among the various contributing factors, epidemic disease was the overwhelming cause of the population decline of the American natives. [6]
Disease began to kill immense numbers of indigenous Americans soon after Europeans and Africans began to arrive in the New World, bringing with them the infectious diseases of the Old World. One reason this death toll was overlooked (or downplayed) is that disease, according to the widely held theory, raced ahead of European immigration in many areas, thus often killing off a sizable portion of the population before European observations (and thus written records) were made. Many European immigrants who arrived after the epidemics had already killed massive numbers of American natives assumed that the natives had always been few in number. The scope of the epidemics over the years was enormous, killing millions of people—in excess of 90% of the population in the hardest hit areas—and creating "the greatest human catastrophe in history, probably exceeding even the disaster of the Black Death that killed up to one-third of the people in Europe between 1347 and 1351. [7]
The most devastating disease was smallpox, but other deadly diseases included typhus , measles, influenza, bubonic plague, mumps, yellow fever, and pertussis (whooping cough). The Americas also had endemic diseases, perhaps including an unusually virulent type of syphilis, which soon became rampant in the Old World. (This transfer of disease between the Old and New Worlds was part of the phenomenon known as the " Columbian Exchange"). The diseases brought to the New World proved to be exceptionally deadly.
The epidemics had very different effects in different parts of the Americas. The most vulnerable groups were those with a relatively small population. Many island based groups were utterly annihilated. The Caribs and Arawaks of the Caribbean nearly ceased to exist, as did the Beothuks of Newfoundland. While disease ranged swiftly through the densely populated empires of Mesoamerica, the more scattered populations of North America saw a slower spread.
[edit] Why were the diseases so deadly?
A disease (viral or bacterial) that kills its victims before they can spread it to others tends to flare up and then die out, like a fire running out of fuel. A more resilient disease would establish an equilibrium, its victims living well beyond infection to further spread the disease. This function of the evolutionary process selects against quick lethality, with the most immediately fatal diseases being the most short-lived. A similar evolutionary pressure acts upon the victim populations, as those lacking genetic resistance to common diseases die and do not leave descendants, whereas those who are resistant procreate and pass resistant genes to their offspring.
Thus both diseases and populations tend to evolve towards an equilibrium in which the common diseases are non-symptomatic, mild, or manageably chronic. When a population that has been relatively isolated is exposed to new diseases, it has no inborn resistance to the new diseases (the population is "biologically naïve"); this body of people succumbs at a much higher rate, resulting in what is known as a "virgin soil" epidemic. Before the European arrival, the Americas had been isolated from the Eurasian-African landmass. The people of the Old World had had thousands of years to accommodate to their common diseases; the natives of the Americas faced them all at once, so that a person who successfully resisted one disease might die from another. Furthermore, multiple simultaneous infections ( e.g., smallpox and typhus at the same time) or in close succession (e.g., smallpox in an individual who was still weak from a recent bout of typhus) are more deadly than just the sum of the individual diseases. In this scenario, death rates can be elevated by combinations of new and familiar diseases: smallpox in combination with American strains of syphilis or yaws, for example.
Similarly, in the fifty years following Columbus' voyage to the Americas, an unusually strong strain of syphilis killed a high proportion of infected Europeans within a few months. Over time, the disease has become much less virulent.
Other contributing factors:
- Native American medical treatments such as sweat baths and cold water immersion (practiced in some areas) weakened patients and probably increased mortality rates. [8]
- Europeans brought so many deadly diseases with them because they had many more domesticated animals than the Native Americans. Domestication usually means close and frequent contact between animals and people, which is an opportunity for diseases of domestic animals to mutate and migrate into the human population.
- (In the colder areas of the Eurasian landmass, houses were often built in two stories. The bottom story was used to stable animals, the top to house humans. In winter, the animal heat would rise and warm the human section of the house. This arrangement is efficient, but it also contributes to disease.)
- The Eurasian landmass extends many thousands of miles along an east-west axis. Climate zones also extend for thousands of miles, which facilitated the spread of agriculture, domestication of animals, and the diseases associated with domestication. The Americas extend mainly north and south, which, according to a theory popularized by Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel , meant that it was much harder for cultivated plant species, domesticated animals, and diseases to spread.
- One contemporary Harvard-educated Mexican epidemiologist, Rodolfo Acuña-Soto, argues that mortality due to imported diseases was compounded, or even dwarfed, by mortality due to a hemorrhagic fever native to the Americas, one which the Aztecs called cocoliztli. Acuña-Soto's research conclusions rely in part on the 50 volumes written by Francisco Hernandez, physician to Philip II of Spain, who not only interviewed survivors of the 1576 epidemic but autopsied many victims and recorded his findings and observations. The fever was apparently endemic during drought years, which coincided with the early Spanish invasion of Central America. [1] Acuña-Soto noticed that previous historians using the same reference works that he used had chosen which accounts to base their results on, so that epidemic illnesses coinciding with the Spanish invasion could, by selectively using resources, look like accounts of European-caused smallpox rather than the Aztec-recognized cocoliztli. The disease the Aztecs described, however, when read in full described a hemorrhagic fever that had nothing in common with smallpox. Such fevers are viral, spread by rodents and bodily fluid contacts between infected people. Using evidence from 24 epidemics, Acuña-Soto concluded that the Spanish did not bring the epidemic to the Aztecs, but arrived during its onset and intensification. Acuña-Soto's theory is controversial and not widely accepted in 2007.
[edit] Deliberate infection?
One of the most contentious issues relating to disease and depopulation in the Americas concerns the degree to which American indigenous peoples were intentionally infected with diseases such as smallpox. Cooks asserts that there is no evidence that the Spanish ever attempted to deliberately infect the American natives. [9] But the cattle introduced by the Spanish polluted the water reserves dug in the fields to accumulate rain water; in response to this threat, the Franciscans and Dominicans created public fountains and aqueducts to guarantee the access to drinking water [2]. But when the Franciscans lost their privileges in 1572, many of these fountains were not guarded any more, and deliberate well poisoning might have happened [2]. Although no hard proof of such deliberate poisoning may be found, a correlation between the decrease of the population and the end of the control of the water by the religious orders may be observed [2].
1763 Smallpox Outbreak at Fort Pitt There is, however, at least one documented incident in which British soldiers in North America discussed intentionally infecting native people as part of a war effort. During Pontiac's Rebellion in 1763, a number of Native Americans launched a widespread war against British soldiers and settlers in an attempt to drive the British out of the Great Lakes region. In what is now western Pennsylvania, Native Americans (primarily Delawares) laid siege to Fort Pitt on June 22, 1763. Surrounded and isolated, William Trent, the commander of Fort Pitt gave representatives of the besieging Delawares two blankets and a handkerchief from the Pittsburgh smallpox hospital, "out of our regard to them" when the two Delaware men came to talk to him. [2] Smallpox, which has an incubation period of twelve days from the time of initial exposure, broke out weeks later.
Given that even educated Europeans widely believed infectious diseases to be caused by bad air (the germ theory of disease wasn't accepted until the middle of the 19th century) it is doubtful that any of these soldiers would have had the knowledge necessary to successfully infect anyone. Moreover, a number of recent scholars have noted that evidence for connecting the blanket incident with the eventual smallpox outbreak is doubtful, and that the disease was more likely spread by native warriors returning from attacks on infected white settlements.