Check for web archive captures
Reuniting Four Worlds
By anitamckay on 2010-02-17 09:03:08
In the beginning was the Old World. It started to be called that once it discovered and dominated the New World. As
colonialism impoverished vast swathes of the world, the Third World arose. When official colonialism drew to a close, the
West created national boundaries without regard to ethnicity. Now, as a result of the ineffective creation of nations by the
West, the fourth world has come into being. The term is believed to have originated in a speech made by Tanzanian Mbuto
Milando. The term came to wider attention with the 1974 publication of The Fourth World: An Indian Reality (1974),
by George Manuel, Chief of the National Indian Brotherhood and Assembly of First Nations. The term is now part of the
lexicon and perspective of political scientists and philosophers. It refers to groups of people who view themselves as one
nation but are stateless. They often have been separated by artificially created national borders. Because of their
fragmented and minority status, they often are discriminated against and suffer the worst poverty in the world. One example
of a fourth world group is the Kurds. Their traditional lands were split into Iraq and Turkey by the nation building of
England and other Western allies after World War I. They have been persecuted by the governments of two countries. In
many areas, where there is no persecution of a minority group, peace prevails. The issue of what to do about Fourth World
nations becomes more critical as time passes. The problem grows as large populations are displaced by ethnic strife.
Fighting between groups has the potential to increase areas of lawlessness, where terrorism has been shown to thrive. Many
of us have been brought up to believe that stealing is wrong. Since the Fourth World has been created by the theft of
traditional lands, we violate our own ethics by letting past errors stand. What can be done about the Fourth World? There is
some precedence for creating nations for Fourth World groups. Israel is one example. Bosnia is another. Taking this route
would need careful planning so that further displacement does not result, as it has in the Middle East. The lands granted
cannot be marginal ones, like many of the Native Americans lands in the western United States. Any new nation building
needs to have all parties involved, unlike the decisions made in the past. In 2007, the United Nations adopted the
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The purpose of the declaration was to bring together on equal footing,
representatives of nations and of the nearly 400 million indigenous people of the world. The goal is to reverse the
marginalization of Fourth World groups. Unfortunately, the United States is one of only three countries refusing to sign the
declaration (Australia refused to sign but decided later to support the declaration). The United States objected on the basis
that the document was not written clearly enough. Is this where people of conscience want our country to stand on this
important issue? For those most concerned about the safety of Americans, is this a wise place to stand?
