For anthropologist, Government promotes the disqualification of Funai

For anthropologist, Government promotes the disqualification of Funai

Co-author of the report on the area that the terena Indians claim in MS, Jorge Eremites de Oliveira says that attitude generates legal uncertainty and conflict over land

June 20, 2013 | 2:10
Pablo Pereira-O Estado de s. Paulo

The federal Government adopts a “anachronistic stance”, disqualifies the Funai and promotes legal uncertainty on the issue of indigenous lands. The statement is the anthropologist Jorge Eremites, co-author of the report of 2003 on the ground that the terena Indians claim in Mato Grosso do Sul. “It’s a violence known only to the time of the military regime,” says Oliveira. For him, the Government errs by proposing the Embrapa input in the process. On March 30, during the eviction of the Buriti farm in Sidrolândia, the Indian Prince Gabriel, of 35 years, died shot. The Government was forced to send soldiers from the National Force to pacify the region. Below, the interview granted by email by anthropologist to State.

The federal Government wants to avoid that Funai alone to act on the issue of indigenous land. Embrapa is required? The strategy of the federal Government, as noted in speeches from the Civil House, has been appointed to systematically promote the disqualification of Funai and anthropological studies for identification and demarcation of indigenous lands. So does under the claim that there is no clarity on the criteria adopted by the indigenous to this agency, as if there were no laws governing the matter. In this way renders the political thought and known clichés of rural movement. With this anachronistic generates legal uncertainty to the indigenous peoples and stimulates the increase of land tenure conflicts across the country, as occurs in Mato Grosso do Sul. It is a violence known only to the time of the military regime. Embrapa, for example, has no competence to deal with the subject, except, perhaps, to contribute to the environmental part of these studies. The recommended at the moment is to treat the indigenous ‘ issue ‘ with the due attention it deserves, i.e. as a priority in the policies of the State. To this end, we must strengthen the Funai, including in terms of budget allocation, and not sucateá it and disqualify her even more.

The President of Acrissul, Francisco Maia said that all land titles are cool. In the expert report which we elaborate in 2003 to the Federal Court in the State of Mato Grosso do Sul, we treat that moment in the history of the terena in the region, subject, known in historiography and in the anthropological literature. Has to do, of course, with the claims process that the Indians have suffered and with slave labor to which they were subjected after the war of Paraguay (1864-1870). It was from there that the State Government was not regularized indigenous lands holder in favour of third parties, because the same were framed in the lands they claimed. At this time the terena were already in the region of Buriti. This was before farmers take possession of properties that have been given in the area of traditional occupation. Misrepresent this socio-historical process is equivalent to produce sophistry, as occurs in many contralaudos prepared by pseudoantropólogos on duty. Now, about the legality of these titles, it is up to the Judiciary the proper final pronouncement on the subject.

There is documentation on the participation of terena in the war? Yes, especially the well known reports produced by Alfredo d’Escragnolle Taunay (1843-1899), the Viscount of Taunay. Among his works are “the withdrawal of Laguna (1871)” and “Between our Chanés Indians, Terenas, Kinikinaus, Laianas, Guaycurús, Caingangs, Guató people”.

Why Brazil taking so long to resolve the issue? This is due to several reasons, including because the Funai to be one of the worst and least efficient government agencies. Successive Governments do not give due attention, except to put their “godchildren” in positions of trust, desprestigiando career employees. Hence to understand why the “indigenous question” have never been treated as a priority among the actions of the State. Just wondering what is the annual budget of the Funai and understand better the subject. It turns out that the current development model adopted by the Brazilian Government is based on the paradigm of economic growth at any cost and that, of course, have negative reflections on the official indigenous policy. It is a model that deliberately violates fundamental rights of indigenous peoples and traditional communities, and social classes in a situation of vulnerability. In this scenario, the indigenous peoples are seen as a hindrance to the “progress” of the country. Reverse this situation should be agenda item of the day of the federal Government, but about it are not encouraging expectations due to a lack of strategic vision and political will. Therefore, land tenure conflicts in States like Mato Grosso do Sul will tend to continue and, with them, more human lives will be cut short, the vast majority of indigenous leaders.

http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/impresso,para-antropologo-governo-promove-a-desqualificacao-da-funai,1044652,0.htm

%d bloggers like this: