What I wanted to comment on and query is the issue of citizenship. While it's certainly great and a common right to be a citizen, there is also a
cynical position towards the term.
Most people probably know that black and white South Aricans only achieved equal citizenship in 1994.
But how many know that American Indians only became citizens of the US in 1924?
Apparently, even by the late 1960s most US people weren't even sure they were citizens at all.
Australian Aborigines only achieved full citizenship in 1967.
However, is "citizenship" just a word?
I came across two documentary snippets on Youtube from a late 1970s/1980 film called "Urban Indians".
It follows a young man from an urban squat (part 1 www.youtube.com...
) to the reservation (part 2
). Is this kind of poverty and alienation still the norm today? I do hope things have
Are indiginous peoples really just "citizens" in word? Is the film-maker manipulating things?
At least in part 2 the film-maker is confronted by somebody, and filming promptly stops.
Well, please feel free to comment and add.
Repeatedly the suggestion is that resources cannot be accessed because citizenship is withheld due to ignorance - but whose ignorance? It seems like a
conveniant excuse from the powers that be - and this is a First World country!
Particularly in the context of SA (South Africa), I wonder if it is enough to call people "citizens". That word placates a lot of people, and the UN
and activists, and then nothing more happens.
It's like centuries of misrule can be wiped away and blamed on the victim for being in a sorry state, because now he/she is a "citizen".
[edit on 8-7-2010 by halfoldman]