PROTECTED STATUS AND THE AMERINDIANS OF GUYANA: A COMPARATIVE EXAMINATION

PROTECTED STATUS AND THE AMERINDIANS OF GUYANA: A COMPARATIVE EXAMINATIONAuthor(s): Andrew SandersSource: Social and Economic Studies, Vol. 44, No. 2/3 (JUNE/SEPTEMBER 1995), pp. 125-141Published by: Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies, University of the WestIndiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27866029 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 06:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of the West Indies and Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies are collaboratingwith JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social and Economic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:08:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=salises

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwi

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwi

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27866029?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Social and Economic Studies 44:2 & 3 (1995J ISSN: 0037-7651

PROTECTED STATUS AND THE

AMERINDIANS OF GUYANA: A COMPARATIVE EXAMINATION

Andrew Sanders

ABSTRACT

Protected status is often used to regulate the relationship between an indig enous minority and the wider society with the justification that it safe

guards the minority's interests. However, comparative data show that the

policy has three inherent problems. It perpetuates a low social standing for

the protected group; it creates particular kinds of hostilities in its relation

ships with other social groups; and it gives great legal power to government In Guyana, protected status was imposed on Amerindians by the colonial

goveniinent and was of a kind that exacerbated these three characteristics,

and in the post-colonial period it was used by the PNC government as a

means of control. Comparative data suggest that the problems of protected status may be reduced through consultation, through educating the majority on the nature of the minority, and through constitutional and similar safe

guards, but they are always present.

One way of dealing with indigenous minorities has been to accord them a

special legal status, subjecting them to government through laws which do

not apply to other members of the state. The justification given for this is

usually that indigenes require protection from the wider society, although there may be other, or additional, reasons for its implementation. Need for

protection is linked to lack of sophistication. It is argued that the indigenous

group lacks the social skills and cultural apparatus enabling it to interact on

equal terms with other groups in the society. Protection is necessary to

safeguard from exploitation. The idea of lack of sophistication, as much as of

being original or pre-colonial inhabitants, appears basic to the current con

cept of 'indigenous peoples'. Often it does not refer to autochthonousness as

much as to ideas about culture and organisation.

In her North and South American colonies Britain came to institute

regulations intended to control relations with the aboriginal population. These

Pp 125-141



126 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC STUDIES

were the precursor to legally protected status for some of their descendants.

This paper is concerned with the way protected status has been operated in

one of these countries with a British colonial past, Guyana, which was Britain's

only permanent colony in South America. However, it is intended to use the

Guyana case in order to deduce some of the social consequences of protected status generally. I shall be discussing what I see as negative social conse

quences of protected status. In doing so, I am not arguing against protected status as a policy for some indigenous minorities. Indeed, I believe its advan

tages often can outweigh its disadvantages. Whether or not they do so will

depend upon the manner m which it is applied. It is intended to point out

some of the problems created by such a policy and which may be inherent in

the nature of protected status.

In all three Guianas ? Guyana, Suriname, and Guyane

? Amerindians

(Native Americans) are recognized as the indigenous inhabitants. They are a

small minority of the population, constituting approximately two per cent in

Suriname, four per cent in Guyane, and five per cent in Guyana. However,

the Amerindian birth rate is high and in all three countries they appear to be

increasing both in numbers and as a proportion of the national population.

They are regarded as culturally inferior, socially backward, and irresponsible, and are accorded the lowest ethnic/racial status in these ethnically and ra

cially divided societies. In Suriname and Guyane they are ranked together with Maroons. Maroons are the descendants of imported African slaves.

Their ancestors escaped into the interior and re-established a tribal form of

organization (Price, 1975). Both Amerindians and Maroons are popularly conceived as possessing a backward culture that is often regarded as

'uncivilised'. All other residents of the Guianas are perceived as descended

from immigrant populations that possessed cultures superior to those of the

indigenous peoples.

The Amerindians of the Guianas can be classed into two categories, Coastal and Interior (Butt, 1965). Coastal Amerindian communities are

situated within relatively easy communication with the coastal regions of

intensive West Indian settlement. They have been strongly influenced by this contact over a long period, and involved in the national cash economy

for several generations. Consequently, in many cases they exhibit what can

be regarded as a variant of a West Indian creole culture, although their so?ial

position ensures they are aware of their identity as Amerindians. Certainly,

their cultural disrinctiveness is much less than is commonly supposed by other members of the national society. At the other extreme, some Interior

Amerindians had little contact with national institutions until relatively re



Protected Status and the Amerindians of Guyana 127

cently, living in small autonomous villages with tribal forms of organisation. Consequently, there can be significant differences in culture, organisation and outlook between the two Amerindian categories.

This difference is least marked in Guyana. The extension of mission

education among Amerindian communities in the Interior of British Guiana

during the nineteenth century had helped promote considerable change in

many communities by the beginning of the twentieth, by which time some

Amerindian populations had been subject to influences from the immigrant colonial society for approximately 300 years. They became drawn increas

ingly into the economic, social and administrative orbit of the colony. By the

mid-1960s, when British Guiana's independence was being negotiated, the

majority of Guyana's adult Amerindians were literate, at least to the extent

of being able to read newspapers. Many spoke creole English as a first lan

guage. The great majority were Christians, of various denominations, and most engaged in the Guyanese market economy to a significant degree as

producers and consumers, in farming and in industries such as logging and

balata collection, and as vaqueros in the southwestern Interior. However,

they continued to live in areas peripheral to the main concentrations of

population, in small, scattered communities near the coast and in the west.

This helped maintain an image of them as a culturally distinct population,

although such backwardness' and 'unsophistication' that existed was the con

sequence primarily of geographical isolation and imposed low ethnic status, and not of culture.

THE NATURE OF PROTECTIONISM IN GUYANA

In British Guiana the perception of the indigenous population as backward was the basis for the British colonial authorities imposing upon Amerindians

in 1910 a special status, intended to protect them in their relationships with

other Guyanese. They were subjected to special laws relating to activities

such as employment and legal representation. These laws were formulated in

the Aboriginal Indian Protection Ordinance of 1910 (British Guiana 1910), which also established a number of Amerindian reserves, areas to which non

Amerindians were barred access without official permission. (Amerindians were not restricted to residence in these areas). This legislation made Amerindians the only Guyanese ethnic group or racial category1 that was

1 For an examination of the role of 'race' and 'ethnicity' in Guyana's social structure, different

interpretations of the nature of Guyanese Vacial/ethnic groups' and the problem of defini

tion, see Sanders 1987b: 14-38.




legally defined and governed under special regulations, a situation that con

tinues today. In doing so, it strengthened their identity as Amerindians and

generated Amerindian ethnicity. The aim of the 1910 legislation was protection, and it was drafted by

anthropologist Dr. Walter Roth who had been Chief Protector of Aboriginals in Queensland. Although the aims of official policy towards Amerindians

underwent change, all subsequent regulations and ordinances concerning

Amerindians share certain characteristics with the Aboriginal Indian Protec

tion Ordinance. Firstly, they are unilaterally imposed and can be unilaterally revoked. In contrast, for example, to the USA and Canada, there are no

treaty rights. There were no treaties in whose creation both parties, Amerindians and government, were involved (Dickason, 1993; H?gen, 1992;

Prucha, 1986; Tobias, 1983). Amerindians have never been consulted regard

ing their special status and the way they are governed. In the post-colonial

period, the People's National Congress government of Guyana sometimes

indulged in a semblance of consultation, but this was a pretence.

Secondly, the laws are largely administered through the representatives of government agencies. (Until recently, they were administered by their ap

pointed surrogates, which included churchmen and school teachers.) Initially,

agents acted without formal consultation with the communities they admin

istered. From the 1950s, with the introduction of local government in many Amerindian communities, officially they have acted in consultation with the

elected representatives of Amerindian communities, but in effect they hold

the power (Sanders, 1987b: 164-184).

Thirdly, they give Amerindians rights possessed by no other group or

individual. For example, Amerindians have the right to enter, reside in, and

exploit areas designated for Amerindians, whereas other persons have to

obtain official permission in order to do so. They are exempted from certain taxes paid by other Guyanese, and have the right to special legal services if

they are in disputes with non-Amerindians (Sanders, 1987b: 49-50). How

ever, these rights are at the behest of the government and can be withdrawn

by unilateral government action at any time.

Fourthly, they legally vest in the government the potential for immense

political control over Amerindians. This is subject only to constitutional limi

tations on the power of the government - which under the People's National

Congress government meant that effectively it was subject to no constitu

tional constraints at all. For example, the government has the ultimate right to define who is an Amerindian. Until recently, Amerindian reserves were




not owned by the people who live on them. They were Crown Lands at the

disposal of the government. The representatives of government departments determine whether or not a non-Amerindian can enter and reside on a re

serve. The Amerindian Ordinance of 1951, that replaced the 1910 Aborigi nal Indian Protection Ordinance, gave the government legal power to deter mine conditions of employment, to control the property of Amerindians, and to control Amerindian drinking of alcoholic beverages. Section 39 gave the Governor in Council the power to make regulations for the 'proper adminis tration* of reserves, to remove Amerindians from one reserve to another, to

make regulations for the custody, education and employment of Amerindian

children, to maintain 'discipline and good order* on Amerindian reserves, and to prohibit Amerindian rites or customs he believed were deleterious to

the welfare of Amerindians (British Guiana, 1951).

Fifthly, these regulations apply to all Amerindians. The only way an

Amerindian can avoid being subject to them is to cease to be an Amerindian.

And to do so, legally he or she has to have government approval. There is no

significant category equivalent to the Non-status Indians of Canada, who are

recognized socially as Amerindians but do not come under the regulations of

Canada's Indian Act (Roosens, 1989: 24). Nor is there any equivalent to

those local communities in the USA whose members regard themselves as

Native Americans but who are not recognized by the Bureau of Indian Af

fairs (Blu, 1980),

Although these laws are formulated and applied on the grounds that

Amerindians are a backward, socially unsophisticated population that conse

quently has to be protected from the rest of the society, even in 1910 many Amerindian communities had been creolised through long contact with

Guyana's West Indian colonial society. Even so, no Amerindian was con

sulted about the proposed legislation. At that time, there was a marked range of cultural variation between Amerindian communities, from the creolized

English-speaking group near the coast to the tribal groups of the more remote

interior. By mid-century, this variation had narrowed considerably, but the

Amerindian Ordinance of 1951 was again based upon the premise of social

and cultural backwardness, and Amerindians were not consulted over its

formulation. In contrast to the Aboriginal Indian Protection Ordinance, it was based on a new policy of promoting integration of Amerindians into

Guyanese society. No attempt was made to define what 'integration' was

intended to mean in a classic West Indian colonial society which had racial differences built into the social and status system. Amerindian disability was




treated simply as a problem of personal abilities. Amerindians lacked the

skills to compete within the wider economy and society. They would be taught these skills in communities that were protected by special legislation in order to regulate relations with outside influences. Integration* was to be achieved

through a combination of local development projects and elected local gov ernment in Amerindian communities, under the guidance of officials of the

relevant government departments (Sanders, 1987b: 31-34). As in Canada

and the USA in the late nineteenth century, it was intended that indigenes become assimilated through a policy of isolation on reserves with a signifi cant input from mission education to promote acculturation (Peberdy, 1948; Pur ich, 1986:67-153; Wilson, 1980). The aims of British Guiana's Amerindian

policy in the middle of the twentieth century were those of Canada and the USA in the second half of the nineteenth century and the first part of the

twentieth, directed acculturation ('civilization') and assimilation, through protection (Hagan, 1992: 133-198; Hoxie, 1989; Tobias, 1983). In Guyana, this continues as official policy to the present day.

STRUCTURAL CONSEQUENCES OF PROTECTED STATUS

I believe that the British Guiana/Guyana policy of protected status has had three major deleterious consequences for Amerindian relations with Guyanese society. I think these are structural consequences of protected status, and are

inherent in any policy of legal protection of indigenous peoples, no matter how liberal, how well thought out, and how socially advantageous the policy may be to the indigenous groups concerned. Consequently, my comments are

intended to apply to protectionist policies in general.

Social Standing of Protected Minorities

Firstly, protected status has been an adverse influence upon the social stand

ing of Guyana's Amerindians. To the majority of Guyanese, special protected status confirms their belief that Amerindians are an inferior people. It per

petuates the idea that they are culturally backward and it strengthens the belief that they are 'racially' inferior. Whereas members of the upper classes tend to view Amerindians paternalistically, the lower classes view them with

contempt. (I use 'class' in a standard sociological sense here. In Guyana, as in

other West Indian societies, 'class' cross-cuts 'racial' categories). In this re

spect, a comparison might be made with neighbouring Suriname, which has never had a special status for Amerindians or a protection policy. It is re




corded that in Suriname, although Amerindians are given low status as a

group they are not viewed contemptuously as they are in Guyana, the atti

tude towards them being one of paternalism, associated with recognition of

the fact that they are the original inhabitants of the country, along with the

belief that they are irresponsible (Kloos 1972:352). (We may be indulging in

semantics here, as no serious attempt has been made to compare attitudes

towards Amerindians between the three Guianas.) There are also differences

in economic and political developments between Amerindians in Suriname

and Guyana, which may be related to the lack of a protected status in Suriname.

The great majority of Guyana's Amerindians reside in Amerindian villages on the geographical periphery of the society, engaging in forest occupations to obtain money income. In contrast, Suriname's 1964 census revealed 41

per cent of Amerindians no longer living in Amerindian villages, most of

them lived in and around Paramaribo and were found in a variety of occupa

tions. While they were usually in the lower levels of these occupations, they were not usually ?n the lowest economic and social levels of the society (Kloos,

1972: 352). Amerindian political movements and parties have a long, though

sporadic, history in Suriname. The first exclusively Amerindian organiza

tion, the Amerindian Association, was formed in 1949, by Coastal

Amerindians. The latest is the militant Tucayana Amaz?nica in west Suriname,

which opposed the Kourou peace accord of August 1989 which ended the

Interior war of the 1980s with the Maroon Jungle Commando, and carried

out a number of military attacks in west Suriname, apparently with the con

nivance of disaffected elements among the Suriname military (Caribbean

Insight: September 1989-August 1990; Kloos 1971). In Guyana, where pro

tected status formally tied the Amerindian population into the political sys tem as a subordinate group, Amerindian political movements did not de

velop until the mid-1960s, immediately prior to independence (Sanders 1987a;

Sanders 1987b; 196203). In Suriname, lack of a protected status may have been a factor ameliorat

ing attitudes towards Amerindians and stimulating economic mobility and

political organisation. However, the social standing of Amerindians as an

ethnic/racial category remains the lowest in Suriname, along with that of

the Maroons. Clearly, low standing is not simply a consequence of special

legal status, its causes are complex and may vary. But where you have pro

tected status, as in Guyana, it is likely to reinforce negative perceptions of the

protected group.




Influence on Relations with Other Social Groups

The second negative consequence derives from the fact that protected status

usually involves some real privileges or advantages, such as tax exemptions,

rights of residence, and even a degree of occupational security. Consequently,

protected status becomes a resource, and by a socially disadvantaged popula

tion it may be seen as the last line of defence against a hostile world. This

promotes fear that it may be revoked or modified, and this influences rela

tions between members of the protected group and outsiders. Fear of loss or

dilution of special rights can promote conf lictual relations with members of

other social groups. In Guyana, Amerindians view relations between them

selves in a different way from those with members of other racial categories and ethnic groups. The former are conceptualized in terms of competition for

reputation. The latter in terms of exploitation by non-Amerindians. A criti cal factor in this difference is Amerindian fear that non-Amerindians are

seeking to take away their rights. This hostility influences personal relations within the Amerindian community. There is significant intermarriage be tween Amerindian women and non-Amerindian men. However, the non

Amerindian spouse is never accepted as a member of his wife's community, no matter how well-liked he may be, because his presence is regarded as

potentially subversive to Amerindian interests. He is a Trojan horse whose

presence sets a precedent that other groups can share in the rights of

Amerindians, and so lead to their erosion or termination. The only way he can become accepted is through the members of the community gradually coming to classify him as an Amerindian. This is rare, as phenotype is a

major factor in 'racial' classification (Sanders, 1987b: 111-112). Wherever minorities have protected status the position of persons in

volved in intermarriage is problematic in the minority community, and this

often affects the position of their children. In Guyana, they are accepted as

Amerindians by the residents of their community and region, but if they leave their region to join Amerindian communities elsewhere they are re

garded there as non-Amerindians, even though their antecedents may be

known. This is a consequence of fear of loss of Amerindian special rights if non-Amerindian individuals are allowed to share in them. In Guyana, the

way Amerindians classify children of mixed relationships has had important

implications for Amerindian action at the national level. In the coastal region of western Guyana there are communities of persons of mixed Afro

Amerindian ancestry who regard themselves as Amerindians, and are offi

cially accepted as such under the Amerindian Ordinance. Mixed Amerindians




from these communities played a prominent role in attempts to form

Amerindian pressure groups to fight for Amerindian interests, but when

they assumed leading positions rivals attempted to destroy their influence by

branding them as 'Black' and denying that they were Amerindians. After

Guyana became independent in 1966 under the People's National Congress

government, there was some movement of 'Black* Amerindians into the Afro

Guyanese population, where they assumed the identity of 'Black' and shed

that of 'Amerindian', because they believed the change of racial identity had

become socially advantageous (Sanders, 1987: 76?163,185-204). In a recent work on ethnogenesis, Eugeen Roosens (1989) cites many

examples of Canadian Amerindian opposition to Euro-Canadians married to

Amerindians and living on Amerindian reserves, from personal complaints

by members of reservation populations to formal opposition by native organi zations. Under the 1951 version of the Canadian Indian Act, a woman marry

ing someone not legally registered as Indian loses her status as Indian. (On

most reservations that are close to cities, the rate of intermarriage is about

one in two marriages.) In recent years, with special social advantages being

granted Canadian indigenes de-registration often has meant considerable

material loss. (For example, Status Indians do not pay direct taxes on income

earned on reservations, or indirect taxes on goods purchased off reservations

but delivered on them. Schoolchildren receive free school lunches, school

books and equipment, and maintenance grants, and persons going into higher education have their registration fees paid and receive free housing, books

and travel.) Many de-registered Amerindians and Non-status Indians desire

to register as Indian. This is opposed by Status Indians and their leaders, who

are encouraged by government to oppose any extension of Indian status on

the grounds that more persons will have a claim on the same amount of

resources. But Status Indians are not opposed to wider registration on these

grounds only. They fear that extension of their rights to in-marrying unregis tered persons, and particularly to men, will lead to government ending their

special status altogether because it is no longer restricted to members of the

Amerindian population. The reservation system and legal definition of the

status of 'Indian* operate to promote opposition of Status Indians to m?tis

(persons socially recognised as 'mixed-bloods*) and Non-status Indians

(Roosens, 1989: 21-100). In both Canada and the USA, there are many thou

sands of non-registered persons who claim a right to the legal status of Indian

and wish to attain it, especially with the recent liberalisation of government

policy towards registered Indian populations in both countries. In the USA




since the mid-1960s, groups such as the Mashantucket Pequots have attained

Federal recognition as Indians in the face of considerable opposition. This

has included Amerindian opposition based on fear that the Federal govern ment will not expand its budget for Indian affairs in proportion to the expan sion of Federal recognition (Hagan, 1993: 188-191).

Protected status influences political behaviour in the national arena in

other ways. Towards the end of Guyana's colonial period, the Amerindians'

special status tied them to the old colonial system. They opposed the devel

oping nationalist movement and the new political parties because they saw

the colonial political structure as the protector of their special rights and

privileges. In Guyanese terms, this meant that they allied themselves politi

cally with 'Whitepeople' against Afro- and Indo-Guyanese. This alliance was

consistent with the whole tenor of Amerindian special relations with the

dominant 'White' group throughout Guyana's colonial history. When, in the

1960s, it became obvious that the colonial power would disengage from Guyana, fear that in an independent Guyana they would lose their special rights and

that protective legislation would be used in order to control and exploit them caused the Amerindian group to support an anti-nationalist party that they

identified as 'White' and anti-'Black' and anti-Tast Indian' (Sanders, 1987b). Protected status is likely to have an important influence on the behaviour of

indigenous groups in the national political arena, although how this is mani

fested will depend upon the structure of the national society.

A Mechanism of Social Control

The third negative consequence of protected status is of a different order to

the previous two. It is the potential of its use by governments in order to

control indigenous peoples. Control is the obverse side of protection. Pro

tected status gives governments considerable legal powers, that can be used

against the desires of the protected group or against its interests. It has com

monly been used to control indigenes and their property, often in associa tion with a policy of 'civilization' or 'assimilation'. In Brazil, the 1973 Statute

of the Indian effectively made Amazonian Amerindians wards of the govern ment without inherent rights. The Statute states that its concern is protec tion, and that Indian communities have exclusive rights to the territories and

lands they occupy. It defines the obligations of the National Indian Federa

tion (FUNAI) towards them. But other articles of the same statute contradict

this, and it calls for the 'integration' of Indians into the national economy by 'participation' in the mineral exploitation of their lands. It was used in sup




port of a policy of land dispossession and mineral exploitation, with FUNAI made to play a prominent role in this process. Legal right to Amerindian

parks and reserves belonged to the Brazilian government, and income from

their exploitation went to its agencies to be used to implement Amerindian

policy, and not to Amerindians themselves. The Statute and FUNAI were

used to further a policy of land and mineral development by multi-national

corporations (Davis, 1989; O'Shaughnessy and Corry, 1977: 16-17). In Canada and the USA, in the past protective legislation has been used

in support of assimilationist policies, as a means of control. The Canadian

Indian Act of 1876 was progressively modified to give greater control of

Amerindians and of band property, especially after the Riel Rebellion of

1885, when a policy of forced assimilation was adopted that was not replaced until 1951. The Act touched every aspect of the lives of Status Indians. It was used, for example, to ban potlatching, tanamous dances, and the sun

dance. In the USA, courts used Amerindian legislation to ban dances, po

lygamy and native doctors (Baca, 1988; Dickason, 1993; Hagan, 1992: 133

168; Tobias, 1983). However, in both countries Amerindian policy is subject to various controls, legal checks, and precedents. For example, in both coun

tries the Royal Proclamation of 1763 is an important precedent that stipu lated how relations between government and Amerindian communities should

be conducted. Although its legal status is controversial, its importance as a

precedent is acknowledged. The importance of these laws, statutes and prece

dents is demonstrated by current debate in the USA and Canada over con

cepts such as 'aboriginal rights' and 'reserved rights'. Policy has moved to

wards self-government, with the acceptance of a more liberal interpretation

of the idea that Amerindian policy should benefit Amerindians. In the USA, Native Americans have been able to utilise the courts and manipulate their

special status in order to promote enterprises such as legalized gambling on

Amerindian reservations (Paredes, 1992). They have discovered how to take

advantage of their unique legal position in order to attain competitive advan

tages over similar enterprises operating in the non-Amerindian sector of the

society. But Canadian and United States' indigenes remain subject to special

legislation that is under the control of the state. In the USA, this is reflected

in the tension between the political concepts of sovereignty and termination.

In Canada, although the policy of assimilation was dropped officially in 1981, Amerindians remain subject to the Indian Act. In both countries, Amerindians

wish to retain their special status with the Federal government, but with

greater self-government and recognition of special rights. However, this means




that government will continue to have ultimate control over any special legis lation (Baca, 1988; Dickason, 1993; Hagan, 1992; Prucha, 1986; Tobias, 1983).

GUYANA: THE CONTEMPORARY SITUATION

In Guyana, there are no such constraints on Amerindian policy. In the colo

nial period legal controls over Amerindians appear to have been applied

sparingly, as there was no political need for them to be used to any extent.

After Independence, the People's National Congress government ruled Guyana for 26 years, illegally holding on to power and creating a highly personalized state through which it governed 'constitutionally' by unconstitutional means.

It retained the special status for Amerindians, but used it as a means of

control whilst claiming that was being exercised for their benefit. The

Amerindian Act of 1976, which replaced the ordinance of 1951, effectively made Amerindians into minors, with the government as guardian. It was

used to control access to Amerindian communities, excluding priests and

opposition party activists. Only People's National Congress activists were

allowed to operate freely in these areas. Village heads were appointed and

dismissed without consultation with the community, becoming local agents of the People's National Congress government.

At the time of Guyana's Independence, Amerindians had called for re

tention of special status, but with legal safeguards, including community rights to the lands they occupied. In 1976, sixty per cent of Amerindian communi

ties were given title to land totalling 4500 square miles, but this was hedged with legal restrictions. The Amerindian Act of 1976 states, 'such title or

interest may be revoked or modified by the Minister upon notice served on

the Council and published in the Gazette where he is satisfied that the land or any portion thereof should be repossessed by the State in the public inter

est' (Guyana Human Rights Association, 1986: 20). Some restrictions were

of a more overtly political nature. The Act states that the Minister can revoke or modify community title if he is convinced that members of the community have *by act or speech' shown themselves to be 'disloyal or disaffected to

wards the State or done any voluntary act which is incompatible with their

loyalty to the State' (Guyana Human Rights Association, 1986: 19). At this

time, the People's National Congress effectively was the state. The Amerindians

of western Guyana received no land title. Their lands were required for

mineral exploration and exploitation, and for an abortive hydro-electric scheme.

They were officially declared to be 'squatters' on the land they had occupied for generations, but they remained Amerindians subject to special legislation.




In 1986, the Guyana Human Rights Association claimed the government had used its powers to implement a policy of 'relatively benign neglect', with

the consequence that Amerindians had fallen behind the rest of the nation in

living standards, education and health (Guyana Human Rights Association, 1986: 20-22). As a result, there has been considerable movement of

Amerindians across Guyana's borders, in particular into Venezuela, which is

regarded by Amerindians as having the most enlightened Amerindian policy of the region (O'Shaugnessy and Corry, 1977: 16-17). There has also been movement into Brazil and Suriname, where Guyanese Amerindians probably

joined the rebel Amerindian movement Tucayana Amazonica. All three coun

tries have territorial claims on Guyana, and this was used by the Guyana

government as a reason for maintaining control over Amerindians, who form

the majority population of much of the regions under contention.

In 1992, the first fair elections took place in Guyana since Indepen

dence, and the Peoples's National Congress lost power, being replaced by a

People's Progressive Party government under Dr. Cheddi Jagan. It remains to

be seen what the change will mean for the Amerindians' social situation and

for their legal status. Probably there will be little change in their social situa

tion. Amerindian communities are outside the main population areas, where

the great mass of government supporters and opponents reside, and conse

quently their interests are unlikely to be a primary political concern.

REDUCING THE PROBLEMS OF PROTECTED STATUS

The application of protected status to Guyana's Amerindians accentuated its

disadvantages. This was a consequence of the type of protectionism and the

manner in which it was applied, and of the structure of the society involved.

Structurally, Guyana remains a West Indian colonial society with special social significance still accorded to race and ethnicity. However, in the colo

nial period protected status had certain advantages for Guyana's Amerindians.

Communities in the more remote interior were given time and a degree of

security in which to adapt to membership of the wider society, without un

controlled external interference. And special status impressed upon Amerindians their common history and created a degree of pan Amerindianness and the idea of an 'Amerindian' culture. Incorporation into

British Guiana did not make them wish to reject their Amerindian identity. This contrasts with the experiences of Amerindians in Suriname and the

coastal area of Guyane, where there was no special status and where, in the

1970s and 1980s, exposure to Western culture and consumerism led many




young people to be ashamed of being Amerindian. They sought to merge with other groups, through intermarriage and in other ways, in order to

extinguish their Amerindian identity. It was only when they were rebuffed in these attempts that they turned to re-creating and emphasizing their

'Amerindianness' (Duchemin, 1972; Forrest, n.d.; Grenand and Grenand,

1988; Grenand, Grenand and Mengel, 1988). However, in Guyana being Amerindian is a quality its holders usually define in a negative way, through contrast with what they claim are the inferior qualities of other 'races', in

particular of Afro- and Indo-Guyanese, rather than in terms of positive quali ties of Amerindianness (Sanders, 1987b).

In spite of the drawbacks of protected status, special status for some

indigenous populations is undoubtedly necessary and can be to their advan

tage. Obviously, this is true when the alternative is genocide or uncontrolled

exploitation, although, as the Guyana case demonstrates, protection is no

guarantee against abuse. Genocide and exploitation can be carried out be hind a fa?ade of protection, as in Brazil in the 1960s where members of the Indian Protection Service, the precursor of FUNAI, were implicated in geno cide, and 'protectionist' laws can be used for control and exploitation, as in

Guyana. Ideally, protected status should involve both sides, indigenes and

government, in its creation and implementation. Even in 1910 in British

Guiana, meaningful consultations between the colonial government and rep

resentatives of at least some Amerindian communities would have been fea

sible. It would have been even more feasible for the amendments and replace ments of the original Protection Ordinance. In the USA today, for example, the model for federal: Native American relations at the community level is often based upon the idea of relations between governments (Baca, 1988;

Hagan, 1993: 195-210). As far as possible, legal safeguards for indigenes' rights should be built

into protected status. This is the situation in the USA and Canada, where

they have been built up over many generations. However, we have to recog

nize that there is probably no real guarantee against abuse, and this is particu larly the case with Third World countries, with their endemic problems of

underdevelopment and political instability. Ideally, therefore, questions of

protection for indigenous minorities should be part of wider policies aimed at social, economic, and ethnic equality, policies that should be supported internationally. International organisations like the United Nations should be involved in attempting to pressure national governments to apply any special legislation for indigenous minorities in a manner that operates to the minority's




advantage, rather than being used as a mode of control. However, one practi

cal action that national governments might take would be to inform their

populations about the nature of indigenous minorities and the reasons for

protectionist policies.

Finally, I believe the question of special protection for indigenous peoples involves fundamental moral issues for its proponents. In Guyana, since the

mid-nineteenth century Amerindians have been regarded as a distinct 'prob

lem* that can be separated out from all other social problems. Guyana's appli cation of protected status is the consequence of this. In a Third World

country whose creation incorporated ideas of 'racial' difference, and in which

'racial' conflict is endemic as a consequence of its structure, to single out one

group for special attention is unlikely to lead to its betterment. It also could

be argued that to do so is morally unjustifiable, because it obscures more

fundamental questions of human equality in general. This is a moral ques tion that applies, I believe, to the problem of indigenous minorities in Third

World countries. I think the situation in advanced industrial countries with

indigenous minorities ? the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand ? is a

different one, and a special status for indigenes in these countries is not

morally problematic in this sense. (The small indigenous minorities in these

highly industrialised countries suffer greater disabilities than other groups in

the society, and have a history of special relations with the society from its

inception. Racial and ethnic differences have less structural importance among

the non-indigenous population than is the case in many Third World coun

tries. Under these conditions, a special status for indigenes, to be used for

their betterment, does not pose the same moral problems.) However, I think

that this problem leads us once again to the conclusion that indigenous mi

norities can only be safeguarded by actions and changes aimed at a more

general social advancement and equality, that ideally should be supported by

organisations operating at an international level. Protectionist policies should

be accompanied by general policies aimed at a wider social and human devel

opment.

REFERENCES

Baca, Lawrence R., 1988. "The Legai Status of American Indians" in Sturtevant,

William C, Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 4, History of Indian

White Relations, pp. 230-237.

Blu, Karen I., 1980. The Lumbee Problem: The Making of an American Indian

People, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.




British Guiana, 1910. Ordinance No. 22 of 1910 (The Aboriginal Indian Protection

Ordinance).

British Guiana, 1951. Ordinance No. 22 of 1951 (The Amerindian Ordinance).

Butt, A.J., 1965. "The Guianas", Bulletin of the International Committee on Urgent

Anthropological Research, No. 7, pp. 69-90.

Caribbean Insight, (Incorporating the Caribbean and West Indies Chronicle). Monthly

issues for 1989 and 1990.

Davis, Shelton H., 1989. Victims of the Miracle: Development and the Indians of

Brazil, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dickason, Olive Patricia, 1993. Canada's First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples

from Earliest Times, Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Inc.

Duchemin, Philippe, 1972. "The Indians of French Guiana and the Policy of Assimi

lation"; 2, "The Situation of the Indian Groups in French Guiana in 1971", in

W. Dostal (ed.) The Situation of the Indians in South America, Geneva: World

Council of Churches.

Forrest, Lesley, n.d. Bigi Poika: A Village in Transition, Unpub. ms.

Grenand, P. and Grenand, F., 1988. "Situation Actuelle des Terres", Ethnies, Doits de

l'homme et Peuples Autochtones, Nouvelle ed. Mai, 1988, La Question

Am?rindienne en Guyane Fran?aise, pp. 27-31.

Grenand, P., Grenand, F. and Mengel, P., 1988. "La Question Am?rindienne en

Guyana Fran?aise: Elements de Synthese", Ethnies, Doits de l'homme et Peuples

Autochtones, Nouvelle ed. Mai, 1988, La Question Am?rindienne en Guyane

Fran?aise, pp. 54-57.

Guyana Human Rights Association, 1986. Report of the Guyana Human Rights

Association for 1986.

Hagan, William T., 1992. American Indians, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hoxie, Frederick E., 1989. A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians,

1880-1920, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kloos, Peter, 1971. The Moroni River Caribs of Suriname, Assen: Van Gorcum and

Comp.

_, 1972a. "Amerindians of Guyana" in W. Dostal (ed.), The Situation

of the Indians in South America, Geneva: World Council of Churches, pp. 343

347.

_, 1972b. "Amerindians of Suriname", in W. Dostal (ed.), The Situa

tion of the Indians in South America, Geneva: World Council of Churches, pp.

348357.




O'Shaughnessy, Hugh and Corry, Stephen, 1977. What Future for the Amerindians

of South America?, Minority Rights Group, Report No. 15.

Paredes, J. Anthony (ed), 1992. Indians of the Southeastern United States in the Late Twentieth Century, Tuscaloosa and London: University of Alabama Press.

Peberdy, P.S., 1948. Report of a Survey on Amerindian Affairs in the Remote Inte

rior, With Additional Notes on Coastland Population Groups of Amerindian

Origin, Government Printers: Georgetown.

Price, Richard, 1975. Sa ra m a ka Social Structure: Analysis of a Maroon Society in

Suriname, Puerto Rico: Institute of Caribbean Studies, Caribbean Monograph

Series No. 12.

Prucha, Francis Paul, 1986. The Great Father: The United States Government and

the American Indians, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Abridged ed.

Purich, Donald, 1986. Our Land: Native Rights in Canada, Toronto: John Lorimer

and Co.

Roosens, Eugeen, 1989. Creating Ethnicity: The Process of Ethnogenesis, London:

Sage Publications Inc.

Sanders, Andrew, 1987a. "British Colonial Policy and the Role of Amerindians in

the Politics of the Nationalist Period in British Guiana, 1945? 1968", Social and Economic Studies, 36, pp. 77-98.

Sanders, Andrew, 1987b. The Powerless People: An Analysis of the Amerindians of

the Corentyne River, London: Macmillan.

Tobias, John L, 1983. "Protection, Civilization, Assimilation: An Outline History of

Canada's Indian Policy" in Getty, Ian A.L and Lussier, Antoine S., As Long as

the Sun Shines and Water Flows: A Reader in Canadian Native Studies,

Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, pp. 39-55.

Wilson, James, 1980. The Original Americans: U.S. Indians, Minority Rights Group,

Report No. 31.



Date post:	20-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	andrew-sanders
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

PROTECTED STATUS AND THE AMERINDIANS OF GUYANA: A COMPARATIVE EXAMINATION

Documents