A Spiritual Concern for Indigenous Peoples' Rights
by Martin Cobin
Member of Boulder (Colorado) Meeting. 
Friends Journal
June 2000

When George Fox advised Friends to “answer that of God in every one,” he meant to include indigenous people. I haven’t met Friends who disagree with that. There may be differences among us as to what we mean by “that of God,” I know there are differences in how we “answer.” I’m moved by a recent experience to share some of what I mean and how I answer. The experience was my involvement, as an AFSC volunteer, in working with a mixed group of indigenous and white people (including some Quakers), mostly in Colorado, to provide input into the recent deliberations of the UN Working Group on the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This working group was formed by the Commission on Human Rights to address the tights of indigenous peoples. Our Colorado group expressed citizen opinion regarding the draft, and we established a communication network enabling us to better understand the issues, keep in touch with what transpired in Geneva during the deliberations, and share our reactions and opinions with involved members of our government.

My goal in writing this is to share the spiritual implications for me of the experience. It was with spiritual motivation that I turned to the local AFSC office to become engaged in this effort. I’ve had an enriching relationship with Native Americans over a number of years, including some lasting personal friendships. A year of work with Friends Committee on National Legislation familiarized me with lobbying on behalf of Native Americans and took me among indigenous people in Alaska, where I spent time with Inuit Friends north of the Arctic Circle. My wife and I worked on a research and writing project for the American Indian Science and Engineering Society; we are members of a Right Sharing Committee of Boulder (Colorado) Meeting that interacts with Lakotas, and we have worked as co­directors of Casa de los Amigos in Mexico City. Such interactions stimulated a desire to learn more about other indigenous peoples throughout the world.

While my interest in indigenous peoples—particularly Native Americans— is deeply spiritual, it has brought with it an awareness of the extent to which they suffer deprivation. When I realized the importance indigenous peoples attached to the UN Draft Declaration and saw the local AFSC Program working with Native Americans in support of it, I was drawn to participate. Living and working most of my life in a predominately one-culture environment, whenever I have the opportunity to relate cross-culturally on deep concerns and personal values, I find it spiritually reinforcing because it strengthens my sensitivity to “that of God in every one.” I’ve been more fortunate than most to have this opportunity with a number of cultures and always appreciate it when it comes—as it did on this project.

A difficult and provocative aspect of this experience was my contact with numerous people, including Friends, who had reservations about supporting the declaration. There was a lack of knowledge, which is regrettable hut understandable. Reacting to that ignorance may be the most significant accomplishment of the project. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but what came through to me from Friends who expressed lack of support was primarily resistance to the article of the draft that declared the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination. As human beings, we have wonderful potential, and great violence is done to us by whatever impedes the fulfillment of that potential. The potential within us is pan of “that of God” which all of us should “answer” by nurturing. At least we should not stand in the way; certainly we should not support what limits and impedes fulfillment. Part of our fulfillment as human beings is related to the respect we experience as individuals and as members of a collective identity—as part of a culture that nurtures us, teaches and reinforces our values, and provides the security of community. Inherent in this is the right to self-determination.

We experience an element of self-determination when we make up our minds how to conduct ourselves. Circumstances may place limits or prevent us from doing what we want. We seek inner strength to deal with this as best we can—a strength we gain from a sense of community when there is one that has unique values and identity. I see real value in doing what is possible, as caring people, to help one another overcome limitations and barriers. How great is our denial of “that of God” in others if we take away their inner strength, if we deprive people of the tight to make up their minds and deal with their problems as best they can! We commonly treat children that way—we decide how they should conduct themselves and assume responsibility for defining and determining how to deal with the problems they confront. We know what’s good and bad for them. We recognize and respond to the need to protect and shelter them from their own inability. This is precisely what our government does when it declares Native Americans to be wards of the state. Do we really believe they are incapable, or are we exploiting them by preventing them from realizing their potentials as adults? Whatever the reason, denying self-determination certainly limits and impedes fulfillment.

Friends do not desire to exploit ignorance nor play the role of wise parents able to provide protection for indigenous peoples throughout the world. What I often hear is a primary concern for social upheaval that might result if all indigenous peoples, permitted the right of self-determination, decided to set up sovereign, independent states. Is this really a subconscious worry over material loss? So what? I cannot help but look at this in spiritual terms—our of my desire to relate to the fulfillment of potential, to “answer that of God” in all people. I believe any feared outcome such as Balkanization is unlikely. Consider if the feared scenario occurred and separation did happen; what real harm would be done if it occurred without the use of violence to prevent it? Most relevantly: if harm were done, to whom would it be done, how would it compare to harm already and currently being done, and how does that relate to harm done to our values as Friends? I don’t think Quaker slaveholders held slaves in order to protect them from harm. I don’t think they worried about the social chaos that might result from freed slaves roaming the streets or the establishment of an African American sovereign nation.

Suppose Native Americans had wished to establish their own sovereign nations within the borders established by the American colonists when they declared their own right to self-determination, so they and not the British ruled the land from which the Native Americans had been dispossessed. What then? The response is history. It’s called genocide. By what right, legal or “God-given” or military, can a people claim self-determination for themselves but deny it to others on whose land they settled? (This, of course, defines indigenous peoples—those living in a land taken over by others.) In practical, real-life terms, military might has been the basis upon which self-determination is established, defended, or lost.

Friends cannot accept this basis, but if U.S.—Canada Lakota today declared themselves a sovereign nation, what then? Suppose you had to pay some sort of price to allow or prevent this. What then?

My involvement in this effort to shape the UN Draft Declaration has forced me to confront a highly disturbing question of values which, as a Friend, I believe is in need of careful examination—by me and others—far more on spiritual than economic or political grounds.

Return to our Page                  To More Quaker Quotes