Brazil's natives, blacks demand respect of land rights

Oct 02, 2013
Indigenous Brazilians demonstrate with Greenpeace activists near government buildings in Brasilia on October 1, 2013, to demand more support from the federal government over land rights

Brazil's native tribes and descendants of African rebel slaves protested in Brasilia Tuesday to demand respect of their land rights.

Among the scores of protesters who gathered to hear their leaders air grievances outside Congress were indigenous activists with painted faces and bodies, wearing colorful feather headgear and carrying spears and arrows.

Despite their warrior tradition, the native chiefs stressed that their protest would be peaceful.

"We are here as distinct communities, not to engage in any violence, but to start a dialogue with Congress," said Kayapo chief Raoni. "We are here to voice concern about laws that harm our people."

Takakire, another Kayapo representative, said the protesters were allowed to meet with lawmakers but emerged unsatisfied.

"The main concern of our communities is respect for their lands, which are violated by soybean growers and ranchers," he said.

Indigenous people represent one percent of Brazil's more than 200 million-strong population and occupy 12 percent of the national territory, mainly in the Amazon.

Wealthy ranchers also make up just one percent of the population, but control 46 percent of the cultivated land, and there are frequent land feuds in the Latin American country.

Indigenous Brazilians at a demonstration with Greenpeace activists near government buildings in Brasilia on October 1, 2013

Indigenous militants have been railing against bills that would affect recognition of native lands and authorize mining on them.

The long-simmering protests boiled over in April when leaders of 121 ethnic groups from around Brazil stormed the House of Deputies to demand their rights and accused President Dilma Rousseff of siding with the powerful agribusiness sector responsible for the country's vital farm exports.

"If today Brazil still has a typical staple food, it is because Indians and blacks preserved it," said Nubia de Souza, a spokesman for the National Coordination of Rural Black Quilombo Communities (Conaq).

Quilombos are settlements founded by fugitive black slaves. Today their descendants live in more than 3,000 officially recognized such around the country.

Explore further: Tens of thousands expected at New York climate march

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Brazil's natives protest dam construction

Jun 11, 2013

Indigenous activists occupied the headquarters of a government agency Tuesday to demand a voice in the construction of a controversial dam in the Amazon.

Recommended for you

Green dream: Can UN summit revive climate issue?

14 hours ago

Five years ago, the environment movement was in its heyday as politicians, actors, rock stars and protestors demanded a looming UN summit brake the juggernaut of climate change.

Rio's Olympic golf course in legal bunker

Sep 18, 2014

The return of golf to the Olympics after what will be 112 years by the time Rio hosts South America's first Games in 2016 comes amid accusations environmental laws were got round to build the facility in ...

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Macrocompassion
not rated yet Oct 03, 2013
It is not the land area that is a suitable criteria for deciding who owns what, because land has different value in different places. Urban land is most valuable compared to rural land for example. The actual value may be assesed by the amount that it benefits its owner when this land is fully used (in other words its economic rent). Thus the Brazilian natives who occupy the forest and scrub lands are not taking away much usefullness compared to a town land owner, who is speculating in a site near a development region.
The justification for a site to be occupied is that it gives the owner opportunhity rights for the site's use. When such an owner does not use his site he should pay the government the same sum as if the site was in proper use because in both cases the site's occupancy is reducing some other potential user (entrepreneur) chances for providing employment and produce. This is achieved by taxing land values instead of incomes, purchases, capital gains etc. TAX LAND NOT MEN!