There is an uneasy sense of entitlement that I get when reading such articles, as if the mere fact of being indigenous, should give one some special status / recognition. This could of course be extended and abused as a form of private power / private ownership of resources / claims to lands and resources above and beyond any individual member of society. As such this would be strategically subversive to the movement of global economic emancipation, creating equality through equal or common ownership. We have to collectively understand that the least and the most that we can and should claim is to be equal. Anything different is divisive and is in many ways the old system / the old ways trying to live another day. We can never go back in time just as most reformists would have us believe. This being especially true as we can not restore the many variables / relationship (especially property relationships) that existed in days gone. We can also not blame or value anyone by race / sex / heritage / etc. But we can attempt to evolve out of our dysfunctional state to reach societal harmony, collectively, systemically, globally. The solution must be global and systemic as nature and the world is interconnected. The indigenous cries of injustice and colonization / oppression are but another symptom of the global capitalist profit system, that can only be addressed constructively and realistically within the framework of a new global economic system - a system in which the identity of individuals is not based on their private possessions nor their blood, ethnic heritage, race, sex, etc. rather by their humanity alone, in a fluid diversity yes but without compromising equality.

We will hang together, or hang alone. All for one, one for all.

Mundus and Slave,
Would a legal determination that some "occupied" lands still belong to the indigenous people, as is explored in the SKing document interfere with being all for one and one for all? --- www.arso.org/SKing.doc
Sea

100 years ago I may have said no. But now definitely YES. All focus should be on eliminating capitalism, and the best way for that is by establishing an alternative economic system that is not based on any type of exploitation (i.e., fundamentally and very briefly -> eliminating private ownership and adopting common ownership).

Once we become truly collective citizens of the world, we shed our identities based on superficial characters as those have been created and maintained by the private ownership exploitative economic systems for the purpose of divide and control / for profit, including national and ethnic origin, sex and sexuality, race, religion, etc. For the first time in a long while we would be defined and define others based on our humanity, our productive contribution to the collective body of the global human race. Our psychology would change over a few generations and we would not give much notice and importance to many superficial characters that we now use to size up each other and take for granted, and would notice other characters that are not particularly valued currently according to the imperatives of profit / capital maximization. If we live like a functional non-hierarchical family (i.e., communally, globally) our attitude and sense of identity would reflect that - one for all, all for one.

So how does Occupy get the power to accomplish this? I have suggested that we now have the world's attention and further that it will continue to follow us if we establish an ethical center. The terms equality and humanity don't constitute this. An ethical center would be action, not action that would get us power, rather action once we have power. The world's attention will get us power, if they believe we will do the right thing. My suggestion is that the first thing, and perhaps the only thing we would have to do, would be to feed everyone. This could be done through the formation of a worldwide political party that would be keyed to the United Nations.