Indigenous movements in the 21st century understand that the struggle is not about gaining access, but defeating domination. Will the Palestinians take heed, asks Bassem Ahmed* For more than a decade now, thousands of people in Denver, Colorado, have been spending the first weekend of October in the streets both celebrating and protesting. This year was no exception. Crowds from different national and ethnic backgrounds came out to participate in the Four Directions March; a celebration organised by the Transform Columbus Day Alliance (TCDA), an umbrella group of grassroots organisations that envision a world freed of Columbus's legacy. Afterwards they took to the streets to protest and block the "Convoy of Conquest", the name they use to label the Columbus Day Parade, and demand a change of the name of this official holiday. As usual, scores of protesters were arrested for violating the legally sanctioned "right" of the parade organisers to "honour their hero". What is this fuss all about? After all, wasn't Columbus, as we were all (mis)educated, a great explorer who "discovered" the "New World" in 1492, the same year that Arab rule in Andalusia came to an end? It is quite striking that Arab commentators who lament the latter often celebrate the former without trying to further interrogate the significance of this coincidence. "Objective" history books usually focus on Columbus's skills (didn't he think he was sailing to India?) and resilience. The ensuing systematic destruction of indigenous societies, the establishment of a transatlantic slave trade, and the exploitation of the wealth and resources of the so-called New World are minor details that more often than not go unmentioned. It is precisely this marginalised narrative that the TCDA wants to bring to the fore. For protesters in Denver, Columbus's trips and crimes were the opening act in the process that led to the crystallisation of a system of domination that subjected non-white peoples to the power of Europeans, relegated the ways of living of the former to an inferior position vis-à-vis that of the European Enlightenment, and made the wealth of indigenous peoples all over the world "legally" available for grabs by any European adventurer. All this was based on an alleged "right of discovery". Initially, this wrong was claimed to be the will of the divine. Later it was couched in more secular and (ir)rational terms by the likes of Locke and Hegel. The confrontation in Mile High City is just one example of a phenomenon that has been taking shape for few decades now, namely the re-emergence of the indigenous peoples of the Western hemisphere on the international stage. From the jungle of Chiapas to the Andes in the Southern Cone, indigenous peoples have been on the march reclaiming their territories and cultures. What distinguishes these movements from Third World liberation movements of the last century is that the latter while struggling to achieve political independence embraced Western modernity and couched their demands in the language of the Enlightenment. They wanted their fair share of the cake. In contradistinction, indigenous movements of this century question and reject the main foundations of the worldview of the Enlightenment. They believe the cake is poisonous and are not interested even in the crumbs. What are the implications of such movements for the Arab-Israeli conflict? And what lessons can the "Indians of the Middle East" draw from the experiences of the "Palestinians of the Americas" -- as Glenn Morris, a prominent leader of the TCDA, describes the Palestinians and the indigenous peoples of the Western hemisphere respectively -- in particular with a new "peace" conference in the offing? Three issues stand out; first, while international law and conferences might be the "civilised" way to settle conflicts, it is important to keep in mind that the doctrine of discovery and the civilised/ uncivilised dichotomy has constituted the meta-theory of international law since the days of Francisco de Vitoria. The mandate system established by the League of Nations under which civilised nations were assigned the task of tutoring uncivilised peoples until found fit for self-determination is another expression of this characteristic. In the same vain, the unequal distribution of powers between the UN General Assembly, where the uncivilised form the majority, and the Security Council, where the civilised nations run the show, the influence of the semi-civilised notwithstanding, further testify to the persistence of this attitude. Consequently, as long as international law is based on this foundation it will continue to privilege the European-Israeli over the Palestinian-Arab, as has been the case since the mandate agreement. Does this mean that international law needs to be changed in order for the Palestinians to achieve their goals? Not necessarily. It only means that international law is neither neutral nor the panacea for the plight and sufferings of the Palestinians, or for that matter many other oppressed peoples. Rather, it should be turned into a site of contention and competing if not conflicting visions. Secondly, in this regard it is about time for Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular to resort to a genuine realist position that is based on balancing, rather than a policy of bandwagoning cloaked in a disfigured version of realism. If Palestinians opt to take this path they will have natural allies in these indigenous movements and like-minded groups all over the world, including in the Western metropolis, that struggle to rid the world of this entrenched system of domination. So when it comes to the international scene the picture might not be as bleak as some commentators suggest. For instance, it might not be too late to reinvigorate the Arab-South American summit. In other words, and quite to the contrary to Fukuyama's affirmations, history has not yet reached its final destination. Finally, the rising attention afforded to indigenous issues resulting from the struggles of indigenous movements mainly, but not only, in the Western hemisphere has created a conducive environment in which the systemic discrimination suffered by the Arabs of 1948 could be moved to the centre of the Arab- Israeli conflict. After all, Israeli oppression has not been limited to the West Bank and Gaza; the Arabs of 1948 have been subjected to it the longest. In this respect, it is totally unacceptable that any Palestinian leader or body that is unrepresentative of the Arabs of 1948 recognise Israel as a Jewish state, thus infringing on the rights of these Arabs. In the eyes of many, such recognition would resemble Balfour's declaration nine decades ago. It will most likely take the protesters in Denver another few years to bury Columbus Day in its birthplace in Colorado. Moreover, the result of this struggle and similar indigenous struggles in the Western hemisphere probably might not be the decisive factor in the outcome of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Nevertheless, one should not underestimate the impact these struggles will have on the character of world order in the future, and consequently on the environment in which the conflict will be settled. * The writer is an instructor at the University of Denver.
