Brazilian anthropologists Manifest disclose on demarcation of indigenous lands

 

Brazilian anthropologists Manifest disclose on demarcation of indigenous lands

 
Friday, June 7, 2013
 
“So blatantly biased, the Brazilian media has criminalised the agrarian regularization of lands inhabited by indigenous populations in the country. To summarize the alarming arguments, the most common idea conveyed is that these processes are fraudulent tricks that would turn “productive” land and people “working” in “Indian reservations”. For the wise, half word just, as is popular domain.
 
What is “productive lands that announces” shall be made “unproductive” and, at the same time, “people who works” will be like that “replaced” by “not working”, i.e. “Indian” – as if the Indians do not work or produce. This perverse metamorphosis is attributed, in many cases, an alleged criminal concert of national and international forces would act in their own interest, having little or no relation to the legitimate occupants of the land.
 
It is not today that this kind of conjunction suspected ideas appears in public opinion or even documents and other formal events related to legal proceedings or matters crucial to the existence of indigenous peoples. These same ideas have been repeating chronically on time until our days, along the many developmental waves of colonization that mark the history of our country since the times of the Portuguese Crown.
 
And Yes. It is always necessary to bring to light the fact that this ideological framework cauciona, insidiously, actions and provisions both of the State and of private agents in the direction of extermination, submission and claims of those people.
 
Unfortunately, we are far from being able to cherish the hope to launch this fateful ideals, full of tragic facts that call for eradication, the darkness of the national memory. In times of rapid impact of discourses through electronic media, there is even the impression that this ideology would be multiplying in countless developments and manifestations. Informal conversations in social networks, newspaper articles is in documents as reports of environmental impact of large economic enterprises or in famous legal disputes to tenure regularisation processes that it appears more pernicious. It is, however, well over a huge smokescreen providentially communicational interposed between the population and their most fundamental rights, distorting and obscuring the functioning of the main constitutional instruments to guard these rights.
 
How aggravating this central collection of misconceptions and distortions, is the most serious ethical charges that anthropologists were allegedly defrauding the anthropological study of identification and definition, as it is legally defined and regulated. It is legitimate that the reader wonder about what it is exactly that. There is no record in the press that, after all, throw real light on what it is and how it’s done, anyway, the settlement of Indigenous land in Brazil. What it is, why and how it happens, who actually does, it all remains in darkness and ignored by the general public or even by specialists from other areas. Everything converges in a situation that results in the total ignorance of this technical and legal instrument and its primary function in this type of adjustment, representing a breeding ground for more fanciful speculation.
 
Appropriate responses to such questions remain absent quick headlines, news or editorials dedicated to treat-and almost always delegitimize –. However, these responses would be much closer to all the Federal Constitution, as an expression and primordial instrument of democracy and citizenship, were not being completely ignored, but systematically distorted, by the media and other fronts that reach the general public. If some do almost involuntarily, by mere lack of interest or misinformation, there are those who do so deliberately, are interested in continuing to effective crime rarely found, the exploitation and inequality, against which the magna carta to be valuable instrument of collective representation.
 
The Federal Constitution
The demarcation of all indigenous land, as well as all its phases and actions, is properly grounded and governed by the Federal Constitution, by law No.. 6001 of 1973, called “Indian Status”, and by Decree 1775 of 1996. It is a long and serious process that involves different steps, a multidisciplinary team of professionals and various levels. Anthropologists are those legally responsible for compiling and analyzing the detailed studies of an interdisciplinary group that also includes officials of federal agencies, State and municipal.
 
The great misunderstanding
We read or hear that anthropologists are hired to say whether a land is indigenous or not, or even if a group of people is indigenous or not. This demonstrates that, once again, there are many “darkness” and complete ignorance not only on the nature of this study as the land property regularization process as a whole. It is important to clarify that the work of the anthropologist in the demarcation of indigenous land is not, in any way, or will result in an expert report, as usually has aired and even as listed in some lawsuits. There is a obscurecedora and perhaps deliberate confusion in the speeches delivered by the media between the concepts of report and report of identification and delineation.
There is much talk about the legal necessity of the State to define and secure subject of law and this mismatch with the dynamic attribute, elusive, but also primarily of endogenous ethnic identity. However, it is important to note that, even from this point of view, the constitutional provisions are themselves deeply in the anthropological sense that State that no one, apart from the group itself, is able to answer these questions put by the State. And he does it within certain space, inextricably linked to the uniqueness of their existence as a group, as said the Federal Constitution, in article 231, chapeau and paragraph 1, under a cultural territory, as defined by Attorney Deborah Duprat. Differential measurement of territoriality and identity of an indigenous group is, therefore, built into the constitutional text itself.
But the land property regularization processes do not address fundamentally that, contrary to what one might assume from the information available to the public.
Absolutely. When these processes happen, this is direct expression of rights of the people on the space that it occupies or, in many cases, of which he was systematically prevented from occupying fully, having been mostly plundered and usurped. When it comes to this advanced state of formal claim what belongs to the law, the land property regularization process is formally opened by an Ordinance of the National Indian Foundation, published in the Diário Oficial da União. In this regard, and in accordance with article 1 of the Decree 1775 of 1996, the administrative body responsible for the formalization of the initiative and guidance of the settlement, strictly subject to constitutional terms, is aFUNAI. The organ, more than responsible for Indian assistance is, in this case, a representative of the State and its fundamental guidelines, ensure proper application of the Constitution, at all stages of settlement.
The Gatehouse, and published in accordance with the constitutional provisions, in the nature of the study, the name and the imposition of each component of an interdisciplinary group, the municipality, the ethnicity and indigenous lands that will be studied in such a period or what.
This group will produce different integrated studies and coordinated by an anthropologist, from that publication, called of anthropologist-Coordinator, as also determines the Federal Constitution. Optional is the presence of other anthropologists, that will be characterized as “collaborators”, so that there is no constitutional requirement in this sense, although it is complementary practice of FUNAI in many cases.
This study will result in accordance with the constitutional prerogatives, the detailed report for the identification and delimitation of a particular indigenous land. This is an extensive and complex work (i.e., detailed), prepared by the anthropologist-Coordinator from subsidies produced by the technical group in conjunction with the participation of the indigenous group in question, in accordance with the constitutional prerogatives.
Also fundamental are the field studies carried out by it, such as those of the Cabinet, which includes a conscientious review of historical and documentary sources, as much of anthropological information cleared directly or in available jobs on the group in question. Once approved, the Technical Report will have its summary published in the Official Gazette of the Union and also of the States involved. As directed in the Decree 1775/96, that if parties see affected may have its Rejoinder to the indigenous body. The original document will also be made available to those who wish to challenge it.
Whereas the occupant in possession of securities or any other form of documentary evidence of their occupation may readily, present them to the federal agency, they are made available to do so, since the beginning of the demarcatório procedure until 90 days after the publication of the said summary in the Diário Oficial da União. This, in theory, will be such occupations were made in good faith.And, once found the good faith of the occupations, the constitutional determinations will be applied, such as the compensation for its improvements and, for small farmers, the priority in resettlement elsewhere, if this is your wish.
 
In the light of Constitution
There is nothing secret or criminal in this process. It takes place in the same space of circumspection and caution required by scientific procedures, especially when dealing with sensitive matters such as fraud with a view to territorial expropriation claims, semiescravidão of resources and people. In many cases, strict documentary research demonstrates the addiction for much of the final titles on indigenous lands, when analyzed in his genealogy. But this is no more than an aggravating, because the guidance first of all work of delimitation is the correct application of the Constitution and, as we said, imprescriptible rights of the Indians to the lands that differentially occupy, according to the understanding of the constitutional text. In other words, these are not just “lots” of land, but of complex spaces, composed of tangible and intangible attributes; understanding the lands inhabited on a permanent basis, those used for their productive activities, essential to the preservation of environmental resources necessary for their well-being and the necessary physical and cultural reproduction, according to their usages, customs and traditions, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 231 of the Federal Constitution.
In particular, a detailed report demonstrates, through documents and scientific studies, the fundamental nexus between an indigenous people and the land it occupies, between their traditional livelihood strategies and, more than that, “existence”, and the environment that surrounds it, between his story and the design of space that it adopts. A space that is, in this sense, irreplaceable by any other, even if, perchance, of the same film. Such is the natural order between indigenous people and their “territory”, as the constitutional definition.
There is no fraud or invention in the process seriously and thoroughly disciplined by the Federal Constitution. Or there would be space for it, if we consider the multiplicity of professionals from various industries and institutions involved. It is therefore a valuable instrument of citizenship, legal expression of rights and social gains that were happening in our country. A country that, remember, is also “Indians”, as its multi-ethnic nature, duly recognized by the Constitution of 1988 citizen.
 
Vulnerability
Indigenous peoples represent 0.4% of the country’s population, according to data collected by IBGE, in 2010. About 60% of the indigenous population is located within the domains of the Legal Amazon. These people have a rich ethnic and linguistic and cultural diversity, consisting of about 220 people, speakers of about 180 different languages. Are languages, cosmologies and ways of life, composing a human heritage millennial differentially of immense complexity and richness, usually unknown to the general public.
Unfortunately, the set formed by this rich human diversity constitutes the most vulnerable segment of the Brazilian population. The indigenous groups hold unfavorable inequality indices magnitude when compared to the most disadvantaged segments of the population. In this context, are amazing the high rates of child mortality indigenous national, especially if we consider that this situation is maintained in regions such as East and South of the country, paradoxically, those who formerly had the highest index of socio-economic development. Is in ensuring a territory for your exclusive use, stubborn practices free of expropriation and grooming, which is one of the most important keys to a possible reversal of this situation.
 
The Perverse Metamorphosis
You cannot, by virtue of a warped logic rhetoric, want to transform claims, involve the dispute and, above all, previous or current expropriation in a sort of traditional applied inside out regarding the use that lends it the Constitution, as to the current land grab methods in this secular country, with or without the connivance of government officials. And behold at this point if unveils the true perverse metamorphosis that devastates the “productive” land of “people who works”, the starting point of our reflections: the private interests of a small group of rural landowners and supposed economic benefits, which do not accrue directly to the well-being of the Brazilian population, earn, surreptitiously, ares now needs to remain, and imemorialidade. And this is treated as the only possible way and indisputable for the nation.
The Federal Constitution guaranteed the inhabitants originating in this land, later called Brazil, their rights also originating. This by historical and anthropological reasons, but also on behalf of the due guard of the citizenship of all its inhabitants. The repair of a genocide continued and recognized, but also to guarantee a plural nation. So there is the smallest place in alleged that the State should no longer demarcate indigenous lands, based completely arbitrary and dictatorial about having reached the “end” of this process simply without your mistakes (innumerable) of the past have to be corrected.
It is important to also bring to light for the general public, there is no need for formal demarcation so that the original right of indigenous peoples on its territory are effectively respected, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 25 of the law 6,001 of 1973, known as the “Indian Status”. Assignments of a detailed report for the identification and Delimitation are, precisely, recognize and define, and not properly establish the rights to their land. These are, in the words of the law, inalienable, imprescriptible and, as paragraph 4 of Art. 231 of the Federal Constitution. In other words, may not be transferred to others, enjoyed by anyone but the group itself and not likely to be extinct, for any decision, decree or Ordinance. For this very reason, any occupation or undertaking that takes place in these same spaces is, by constitutional determination, and extinct, in its own right, as paragraphs 4° and 6° of article 231 of our current Constitution. The same applies to acts of exploitation of resources of the soil, rivers and lakes, which have legal effect and on which the Indians have a right of exclusive use.
Therefore, not “Indians” and not a “land” or a “space” Indians, are opened from a formal process of regularization. On the contrary, its existence predates the this process, which it unfolds. When, finally, a gatehouse in the Diário Oficial da União determines the Constitution of a technical group that will produce a detailed report for the identification and Delimitation and dealing with multiple and interdisciplinary aspects of the relationship between a people and he understands how your space, this is because the demand for regularisation is already, in fact, legitimate.
In this sense, indigenous agrarian regularization processes have undergone a disfigurement much similar to the one that has been known to be happening to the environmental licensing processes in the country. Thus, actions and decisions of public policies that are conspicuous by their citizenship and hard-won social rights recognition over time, those on the terms “life” and “people” are, at the same time, buried by a nation’s business idea, which takes the economic development of severed completely unilaterally and of human development. Drowning out the existence or the reason those “voices” of law, are usually referred to economic gains and losses, “productivity” and other indicators, as we know, can be in complete disagreement with the reality of the lives of people in the cities and in the countryside.
And yet, the practice has shown that, even when recognized the undeniable negative effects of certain enterprises, such as hydroelectric, they have always been, performed. Before other possible energy arrays (or recycled legacy systems), and even their legal conditions of unfulfilled establishment and functioning, as the stricken populations, public consultation provided for in current legislation and international agreements signed by the Brazilian State, the emphasis falls on the advantages of such economic or formally which project, earlier than about its impact, often devastating, in people’s lives.
 
Darkness or lights?
Nothing, not even the business ideology, can be superimposed on the country’s Federal Constitution or justify their brutal rape. Its primary purpose is to ensure the well-being of its population primarily as a whole, which includes all the different segments of the country and future generations. More than alarming news and speeches aimed at the private well, charge all the sectors involved, including the Brazilian media, which become accessible to the population, first of all, the lights of the Federal Constitution of our country.
That treat and for those who serve such unilateral paths of “progress” and “development” of a nation if they are not accompanied, step by step, by its human development and of respect for its Constitution?
In this stronghold, there are only darkness.
 

Adriana Romano Athila, antropóloga, Santa Catarina
Adriana Strappazzon, antropóloga, Santa Catarina
Ana Beatriz de Miranda Vasconcelos e Almeida, enfermeira, Mato Grosso
Ana Claudia Cruz da Silva, antropóloga, Rio de Janeiro
Ana Maria R. Gomes, antropóloga, Minas Gerais
Ana Maria Ramalho Ortigão Farias, médica, Rio de Janeiro
Ana Paula Lima Rodgers, antropóloga, Rio de Janeiro
André Demarchi, antropólogo, Tocantins
Andreia Fanzeres, jornalista, Mato Grosso
Angela Sacchi, antropóloga, Distrito Federal
Antonio Carlos Mendonça Viana, estudante de antropologia, Rio de Janeiro
Antonio Carlos de Souza Lima, antropólogo, Rio de Janeiro
Antonio Hilario Aguilera Urquiza, antropólogo, Mato Grosso do Sul
Bárbara Maisonnave Arisi, antropóloga, Paraná
Bárbara Villa Verde Revelles Pereira, jornalista, Paraná
Beatriz Carretta Corrêa da Silva, linguista, Distrito Federal
Betty Mindlin, antropóloga, São Paulo
Bruno Emílio Fadel Daschieri, antropólogo, Rio de Janeiro
Bruno Simionato Castro, engenheiro florestal, Mato Grosso
Cândido Eugênio Domingues de Souza, Historiador, Bahia
Carlos Eduardo Rebello de Mendonça, sociólogo, Rio de Janeiro
Carmen Junqueira, antropóloga, São Paulo
Carmen Rial, antropóloga, Santa Catarina
Carolina Souza Pedreira, antropóloga, Distrito Federal
Cassio Brancaleone, sociólogo, Rio Grande do Sul
Cecilia Malvezzi, médica, São Paulo.
Celia Leticia Gouvêa Collet, antropóloga, Acre
Cinthia Creatini da Rocha, antropóloga, Santa Catarina
Clarissa Rocha de Melo, antropóloga, Santa Catarina
Daniel Bitter, antropólogo, Rio de Janeiro
Daniel Garibotti, produtor de documentários, Espanha
Daniel de Oliveira Santos, farmacêutico, Mato Grosso
David Rodgers, antropólogo, Rio de Janeiro
Denise Cavalcante Gomes, arqueóloga, Rio de Janeiro
Diego Giuseppe Pelizzari, indigenista, Paraná
Diego Madi Dias, antropólogo, Rio de Janeiro
Diogo de Oliveira, antropólogo, Santa Catarina
Edison Rodrigues de Souza, antropólogo, Bahia
Edviges Ioris, antropóloga, Santa Catarina
Eduardo Pires Rosse, antropólogo, França
Eliana de Barros Monteiro, antropóloga, Pernambuco
Eliana E. Diehl, Farmacêutica (Saúde Indígena), Santa Catarina
Emanuel Oliveira Braga, antropólogo, Paraíba
Emilia Juliana Ferreira, antropóloga, Distrito Federal
Esther Jean Langdon, antropóloga, Santa Catarina
Eunice Dias de Paula, pedagoga e linguista, Mato Grosso
Fabiane Vinente dos Santos, antropóloga, Amazonas
Fábio Christian de Carvalho, administrador, Mato Grosso
Fanny Longa Romero, antropóloga, Rio Grande do Sul
Felipe Agostini Cerqueira, antropólogo, Rio de Janeiro
Felipe Bruno Martins Fernandes, antropólogo, Santa Catarina
Fernanda Ratto, psicóloga, Rio de Janeiro
Flávio Wiik, antropólogo, Paraná
Flora Monteiro Lucas, antropóloga, Rio de Janeiro
Georgia da Silva, antropóloga, Distrito Federal
Gilberto Azanha, antropólogo, Distrito Federal
Giovana Acácia Tempesta, antropóloga, Distrito Federal
Hein van der Voort, Linguista, Pará
Helena Tenderini, antropóloga, Pernambuco
Hélio Barbin Junior, médico e antropólogo, Santa Catarina
Heloisa Barbati, estudante de Antropologia, Itália
Henry Luydy Abraham Fernandes, antropólogo, Bahia.
Henyo Trindade Barretto Filho, antropólogo, Distrito Federal
Jacira Bulhões, antropóloga, Mato Grosso.
Jackson Fernando Rêgo Matos, Engenheiro Florestal, Pará
Jeremy Paul Jean Loup Deturche, antropólogo, Santa Catarina
João Batista de Almeida Costa, antropólogo, Minas Gerais
José Andrade, antropólogo, Pará
João Daniel Dorneles Ramos, sociólogo, Rio Grande do Sul
José Ronaldo Mendonça Fassheber, antropólogo, Paraná
Juracilda Veiga, antropóloga, São Paulo
Jurema Machado de Andrade Souza, antropóloga, Bahia
Juliana de Almeida, antropóloga, Amazonas
Katia Maria Ratto, médica, Rio de Janeiro
Larissa Menendez, antropóloga, Mato Grosso
Laura Graziela F. F. Gomes, antropóloga, Rio de Janeiro
Lea Tomass, antropóloga, Distrito Federal
Léia de Jesus Silva, linguista, Goiás
Leonardo Pires Rosse, etnomusicólogo, Minas Gerais
Leonardo Santos Leitão, sociólogo, Santa Catarina
Lisiane Koller Lecznieski, antropóloga, Santa Catarina
Lucia Helena Rangel, antropóloga, São Paulo
Lucia Hussak van Velthem, antropóloga, Distrito Federal
Luciana Gonçalves de Carvalho, antropóloga, Pará
Lucila de Jesus Mello Gonçalves, psicanalista, São Paulo
Maria Audirene Cordeiro, linguista, Amazonas
Maria Christina Barra, antropóloga, Minas Gerais
Mariana Corrêa dos Santos, cientista social, Rio de Janeiro
Mariana Cristina Galante Nogueira, servidora pública federal, São Paulo
Maria Dorothea Post Darella, antropóloga, Santa Catarina
Maria Lúcia Haygert, antropóloga, Santa Catarina
Maria Rosário Carvalho, antropóloga, Bahia
Marina Monteiro, antropóloga, Santa Catarina
Marina Pereira Novo, antropóloga, São Paulo
Márcia Leila de Castro Pereira, antropóloga, Distrito Federal
Marcos Alexandre dos Santos Albuquerque, antropólogo, Rio de Janeiro
Marcos de Almeida Matos, antropólogo, Acre
Marcus Vinícius Carvalho Garcia, antropólogo, Distrito Federal
Maria Fernanda Salvadori Pereira, antropóloga, Santa Catarina
Marlene Lúcia Siebert Sapelli, Educadora, Paraná.
Marta Caravantes, jornalista, Espanha
Martinho Tota Filho Rocha de Araújo, antropólogo, Rio de Janeiro
Matteo Raschietti, filósofo, São Paulo
Maurício Soares Leite, nutricionista (saúde indígena), Santa Catarina
Mauro Silveira de Castro, farmacêutico, Rio Grande do Sul
Miguel Aparicio, antropólogo, Amazonas
Mirella Alves de Brito, antropóloga, Santa Catarina
Nádia Heusi Silveira, antropóloga, Santa Catarina
Odair Giraldin, antropólogo, Tocantins
Paulo Humberto Porto Borges, Educador, Paraná
Peter M.I.B. Beysen, antropólogo, Rio de Janeiro.
Philippe Hanna, antropólogo, Holanda
Raquel Mombelli, antropóloga, Santa Catarina
Renan Reis de Souza, antropólogo, Rio de Janeiro
Ricardo Ventura Santos, antropólogo, Rio de Janeiro
Rinaldo Sérgio Vieira Arruda, antropólogo, São Paulo
Robson Rodrigues, arqueólogo, São Paulo
Rodrigo Marcelino, biólogo, Mato Grosso
Rodrigo Toniol, antropólogo, Rio Grande do Sul
Roberto Salviani, antropólogo, Rio de Janeiro
Robin M. Wright, antropólogo, São Paulo.
Rosângela Pereira de Tugny, etnomusicóloga, Minas Gerais
Senilde Alcantara Guanaes, antropóloga, Paraná
Sergio Baptista da Silva, antropólogo, Rio Grande do Sul
Silvana Jesus do Nascimento, antropóloga, Mato Grosso do Sul
Silvana Sobreira de Matos Patriota, antropóloga, Pernambuco
Sônia Weidner Maluf, antropóloga, Santa Catarina
Soren Hvalkof, antropólogo, Dinamarca
Suzana Castanheiro Uliano, antropóloga, Santa Catarina
Tatiana Dassi, antropóloga, Santa Catarina
Thiago Mota Cardoso, antropólogo, Santa Catarina
Tiago Moreira dos Santos, antropólogo, São Paulo
Waleska Aureliano, antropóloga, Rio de Janeiro
Wellington de Jesus Bomfim, antropólogo, Sergipe
Vanessa Alvarenga Caldeira, antropóloga, São Paulo
Vaneska Taciana Vitti, antropóloga, São Paulo
Victor Amaral Costa, antropólogo, São Paulo
Fórum da Amazônia Oriental – FAOR
Centro Gaspar Garcia de Direitos Humanos/ São Paulo
Comitê Metropolitano Xingu Vivo.

 

source~ Correio da Cidadania http://www.correiocidadania.com.br/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8451

Creative Commons License

 
Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: