Might I kindly point out that the Inca were a civilization, an empire, not a truly primitive or tribal people.

Don't use the sins of one to bastardize the other, K? Don't fuel the Hobbesians among us.

what I meant to say was that (in Tupac Amaru II case) peaceful petitions or influence in high circles didn't work. Neither did the rebellion. What's the way out then?

(I was not saying that the Incas were living like the Na'vi neither am I saying that they were superpeaceful. My post was meant to compare the two situations - that of half a thousand years ago, and that of now, & I see at least something similar).

Can we have a little less of the personal attacks, please?

There's a truce in Puno and Desaguadero until Monday, after the elections.

let's see what happens...

I never said anything about Inka or other empires of that area - neither in defense nor in opposition of them. The topic of this thread was indigenous struggle against outside occupation and destruction and the means by which they and as an extension other activist groups try to reach their goals.

It does not matter to me if these people are like the NA'Vi or if they are very different. What matters is that they have a right to keep their traditional ways if they want to do, to keep their traditional lands in a state as it was in the last generations, to have the freedom to decide for themselves how they are going to live in the future and how to maintain the land of their ancestors in the shape they want to give to their children. It is irrelevant for that question if they are all flowerpower earth-loving spirit flows through all things kind of people or just try to make a decent living by fishing from a lake and telling each other stories. The argument is, that they have a right to defend themselves against outside occupation and destruction and that I think it is understandable that if one tactic to do this does not work, they will choose other tactics.

The comparison to Germanys anti-nuclear movement is not perfect of course, but recent events or not, that movement has a huge influence for decades now - it prevented nuclear waste reprocessing plants, the construction of new nuclear plants and the use of unsuited places for waste storage. Again it does not matter if one is for or against nuclear power, but the point is that that kind of movement and action was successful in reching its goals - if it was not for that movement, the situation in terms of nuclear power would be very different now and also the recent events would have had a different effect. Again - it does not matter if one thinks that nuclear is actually a great thing or not, but the fact that this kind of activism that included all kinds of activities was successful in reaching its goals stands.

But Human No More, if you do not want to hear this, feel free to just close the thread as you did with the last one you disgreed with me. If you do so, you may eventually actually succeed in me leaving and spending my time elsewhere....

I really don't have a problem with your discussing these things, ironically then I actually agree on several topics, but I just get sick of you using every single thread you post in as a place to rant about your pet issues when they have no relevance, and I was just pointing out that your opinion of various native people is based primarily on "They are native so they must be automatically and unquestionable 100% good" without looking at any actual practices or indeed, if they are even at all like the popular image. I still don't see the connection between a terrorist act and some (presumably peaceful) protests against a country's energy supply, even if you consider how they are in effect harming their own cause through badly considered actions.

You may have misunderstood me - I am not saying that all people are 100% saints just because they are native or indigenous. BUT i am saying that industrial civilization and its members have not the right to impose anything on these other cultures, like taking away land, cutting down forests, polluting rivers or building mines and oil wells on their lands. I tend to think that indigenous peoples have a better sense for keeping the landbase they depend on alive and well, yes - in a way that makes them "better".

On the comparison of the struggles here - the German anti nuclear movement has a lot of parts that the americans or the UK would call "terrorist", like cutting rails of railways, digging holes under railways, there have been clashes with the police in abundance and Yes, police cars burned and all that. To portray the environmental movement in Germany as a bunch of people holding up signs but stepping away when the police comes is nonsense. It was a hard struggle and there was violence involved - though mostly the violence starts at the "other end", if police tries to forcefully remove blockades by protesters with teargas and water...

People also claimed that all that action with police and sabotage would weaken the movement or have contrary effects and all that - but it turns out that the German anti nuclear movement is the strongest in the world and was very effective overall - so obviously the frequent news report about police clashing with protesters at WAA and other hotspots did not really harm the movement, but actually put it on the front rows of the newspapers even.

So again - I am not saying that sabotage and property destruction are great things by themselves, but at timesthese things are the logical next step in a struggle.

If any such struggle can at all have success, I do not dare to say - all too often any nonviolent or "violent" struggle will not be able to prevent whatever is opposed, but I think if things are really important, if the thing that is at stake is your health, your land, your subsistence, the future of your children, then I do not want to deny anyone any choice of tactics.

Oh and just to show what happens in case of "peaceful, nonviolent protests" in the USA:

YouTube - ‪Dance Party @ TJ'S!!!‬‏

You get thrown to the ground with a hand at your throat for DANCING? Who is violent there now? The protesters? Probably because they provoked it and dared to dance!?!?

Whats going to be regarded as worthy of police violence next? Having red colored hair?

That is SO wrong...

That is absolutely ridiculous... but then again, people already knew the US was like that.

Well, that's no surprise. Welcome to the corporate police state.

What I find funny is that all the anti-"big gummint" people like Palin and Bachmann are silent about this. Apparently they only think the government is too big when it keeps their corporate pimps from dumping waste into the environment or giving their workers the shaft. They couldn't give less of a damn about the rights and civil liberties about the average American. Swine...

Elections are gone and Humala is the president. Almost immediately, the Lima Stock Market plummeted 12% and had to stop all the operations to stop the panic of the investors. Puno and Desaguadero seem to be quiet and no news of new blockades or riots.

News from the area:
Anti-Mining Protesters Shut Down Airport after Deadly Clash in Peru
Yay - One may disagree with the methods of burning cars, government buildings and walls of tires, but the protesters managed to get the government to revoke the mining licenses in an effort to restore peace. Sadly it cost them dearly and people died for that and they have my respect and condolences. This is a sign to me how serious this issue is for these people - they do not risk death for some abstract thing like politics or money ... they REALLY do not want the mining companies to rip open their lands.

So their idea is what exactly? ..."Terrorism works"?