Saving the Bedouin Heritage and Biodiversity
Libyan Bedouin Camp, Dubai Heritage Village
http://portal.unesco.org/intangible
The Bedouin are a part of the predominantly desert-dwelling Arab ethnic group. Specifically the term refers only to the „camel-raising“ tribes, but due to economic changes many are now settled or raising sheep. Also due to linguistic and cultural changes the term is now often applied in many ways either to Arabs in general or to desert dwellers or nomads.
Bedouins are traditionally divided into tribes or clans, known in Arabic as ʿašÄʾir (عَشَائِر). A widely quoted Bedouin saying is „I against my brother, my brothers and me against my cousins, then my cousins and I against strangers„. This saying signifies a hierarchy of loyalties based on closeness of kinship that runs from the nuclear family through the lineage, the tribe, and even, in principle at least, to an entire ethnic or linguistic group (which is perceived to have a kinship basis). Read more: > HERE <
The Negev Bedouin (Arabic: بدو النقب, Badū an-Naqab) are traditionally pastoral semi-nomadic Arab tribes indigenous to the Negev region in Israel, who hold close ties to the Bedouin of the Sinai Peninsula. The forced alteration of their traditional lifestyle has led to sedentarization. Estimated to number some 160,000,they comprise 12% of the Arab citizenry of Israel.Of Israel’s total population, 12% live in the Negev,and Negev Bedouin constitute approximately 25% percent of the total population therein. Read More: > HERE <
The Bedouin heritage Project was founded to help safeguard the unique cultural heritage of Bedouin communities around the globe. Founded on the principles of the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage.
The Non Profit Association will foster projects to help safeguard the intangible cultural heritage of Bedouin communities throughout the Middle East following the basic principles:
- The collection and intergenerational transmission of oral heritage; and
- The transmission and adaptation of knowledge and know-how.
The Wadi Rum project in Jordan is promoted by the Bedouin Heritage Project. The principal goal of the project is to safeguard the main features of the lifestyle and oral history of the Bedu that have developed in Wadi Rum region over the course of millennia and that are being lost due to inevitable societal changes.
The BHP’s Wadi Rum project goal is to participate, record, represent and ultimately safeguard the many facets of the Bedouin lifestyle, social system, traditions, medicine and oral history. This two year project will incorporate the best practices of cultural and media anthropology including video, photography, audio, figurative art, journalism, academic research, sensory memory and genealogy.
While the initial project is local in nature, the best practices established should serve as a model for future projects throughout Jordan and the middle east. In order to achieve the project’s goals and deliver a living memory to the Bedu themselves, new methodologies for authenticate representation of intangible heritage and oral traditions will be required and, ideally, will be transfered to similar projects around the world.
“If we begin to see each other as we are…brothers, all striving for the same things and with the same problems…then maybe we can begin to put an end to this madness. We are fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, bosses, employees, emigrants, lovers and, most of all, children.
As long as we highlight differences in our cultures, traditions and lives, then a true dialogue can never begin. However, once we show respect for the traditions, history and lifestyle of other peoples, then we can truly begin to talk about the numerous problems we all face.”
Sabah and Salem Ali lafi explain the harvesting and application of common desert plant medicines. The Bedouin heritage Project offers a unique insight into the medicinal plants the bedouin of Wadi Rum, Jordan, have used for centuries. Sabbah ali Lafi and his brother Salem share their traditions in words and images.
NISPED-AJEEC is dedicated to offering educational programs for children of all ages that meet the needs and traditions of the Arab-Bedouin community. Our staff and volunteers work together with community educators, parents and residents in the planning and running of these programs. NISPED-AJEEC’s initiatives include early childhood day-care centers – Bet El-Umm Wal-Tifil (The House of the Mother and the Child) – educational activity centers in unrecognized villages for children of all ages and special summer camps and activities.
This innovative pilot project, initiated in April 2006, provides an enriching, stimulating, accessible and safe after-school environment for children ages 4 to 8 in two unrecognized Arab Bedouin villages, Hashem Zane and Qassar el Sar, where no such services existed.
The playgrounds are located in a readily accessible public space in the village, selected for this purpose by the communities. Each playground consists of a large fenced-in play area and a small playing field. The play areas are equipped with safe playground equipment – swings, see-saws, slides, jungle gyms, sandbox, utilizing recycled materials such as tires, cable spools, and more. Adjacent to the playgrounds are tents that provide sheltered area for indoor play and enrichment activities.
The playgrounds are open daily after school hours, on weekends and during school breaks. Responsibility for operation of the program and care and maintenance of playgrounds are in the hands of a staff of specially trained men and women employed on a part-time basis, assisted by high school students from the community who are trained as junior counselors. During the academic year (November-June) AJEEC’s Bedouin Volunteer Center deploys student volunteers to provide educational enrichment, tutoring and help with homework for children in need of assistance and coaching, while parents and other members of the community will be encouraged to volunteer their services to help in running the program.
The playgrounds and educational activity centers are designed and equipped to provide a wide range of activities suitable for both girls and boys of different ages and interests, both outdoor and indoor, within an area sufficiently large to provide ample room for free and easy movement.
The Challenge of Human Rights and Cultural Diversity –
United Nations Background Note by Diana Ayton-Shenker
Published by the United Nations Department of Public Information DPI/1627/HR–March 1995
The end of the cold war has created a series of tentative attempts to define „a new world order“. So far, the only certainty is that the international community has entered a period of tremendous global transition that, at least for the time being, has created more social problems than solutions.
The end of super-power rivalry, and the growing North/South disparity in wealth and access to resources, coincide with an alarming increase in violence, poverty and unemployment, homelessness, displaced persons and the erosion of environmental stability. The world has also witnessed one of the most severe global economic recessions since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
At the same time, previously isolated peoples are being brought together voluntarily and involuntarily by the increasing integration of markets, the emergence of new regional political alliances, and remarkable advances in telecommunications, biotechnology and transportation that have prompted unprecedented demographic shifts.
The resulting confluence of peoples and cultures is an increasingly global, multicultural world brimming with tension, confusion and conflict in the process of its adjustment to pluralism. There is an understandable urge to return to old conventions, traditional cultures, fundamental values, and the familiar, seemingly secure, sense of one’s identity. Without a secure sense of identity amidst the turmoil of transition, people may resort to isolationism, ethnocentricism and intolerance.
This climate of change and acute vulnerability raises new challenges to our ongoing pursuit of universal human rights. How can human rights be reconciled with the clash of cultures that has come to characterize our time? Cultural background is one of the primary sources of identity. It is the source for a great deal of self-definition, expression, and sense of group belonging. As cultures interact and intermix, cultural identities change. This process can be enriching, but disorienting. The current insecurity of cultural identity reflects fundamental changes in how we define and express who we are today.
Universal Human Rights and Cultural Relativism
This situation sharpens a long-standing dilemma: How can universal human rights exist in a culturally diverse world? As the international community becomes increasingly integrated, how can cultural diversity and integrity be respected? Is a global culture inevitable? If so, is the world ready for it? How could a global culture emerge based on and guided by human dignity and tolerance? These are some of the issues, concerns and questions underlying the debate over universal human rights and cultural relativism.
Cultural relativism is the assertion that human values, far from being universal, vary a great deal according to different cultural perspectives. Some would apply this relativism to the promotion, protection, interpretation and application of human rights which could be interpreted differently within different cultural, ethnic and religious traditions. In other words, according to this view, human rights are culturally relative rather than universal.
Taken to its extreme, this relativism would pose a dangerous threat to the effectiveness of international law and the international system of human rights that has been painstakingly contructed over the decades. If cultural tradition alone governs State compliance with international standards, then widespread disregard, abuse and violation of human rights would be given legitimacy.
Accordingly, the promotion and protection of human rights perceived as culturally relative would only be subject to State discretion, rather than international legal imperative. By rejecting or disregarding their legal obligation to promote and protect universal human rights, States advocating cultural relativism could raise their own cultural norms and particularities above international law and standards.
Universal Human Rights and International Law
Largely through the ongoing work of the United Nations, the universality of human rights has been clearly established and recognized in international law. Human rights are emphasized among the purposes of the United Nations as proclaimed in its Charter, which states that human rights are „for all without distinction“. Human rights are the natural-born rights for every human being, universally. They are not privileges.
The Charter further commits the United Nations and all Member States to action promoting „universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms“. As the cornerstone of the International Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms consensus on a universal standard of human rights. In the recent issue of A Global Agenda, Charles Norchi points out that the Universal Declaration „represents a broader consensus on human dignity than does any single culture or tradition“.
Universal human rights are further established by the two international covenants on human rights (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), and the other international standard-setting instruments which address numerous concerns, including genocide, slavery, torture, racial discrimination, discrimination against women, rights of the child, minorities and religious tolerance.
These achievements in human rights standard-setting span nearly five decades of work by the United Nations General Assembly and other parts of the United Nations system. As an assembly of nearly every State in the international community, the General Assembly is a uniquely representative body authorized to address and advance the protection and promotion of human rights. As such, it serves as an excellent indicator of international consensus on human rights.
This consensus is embodied in the language of the Universal Declaration itself. The universal nature of human rights is literally written into the title of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its Preamble proclaims the Declaration as a „common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations“.
This statement is echoed most recently in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, which repeats the same language to reaffirm the status of the Universal Declaration as a „common standard“ for everyone. Adopted in June 1993 by the United Nations World Conference on Human Rights in Austria, the Vienna Declaration continues to reinforce the universality of human rights, stating, „All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated“. This means that political, civil, cultural, economic and social human rights are to be seen in their entirety. One cannot pick and choose which rights to promote and protect. They are all of equal value and apply to everyone.
As if to settle the matter once and for all, the Vienna Declaration states in its first paragraph that „the universal nature“ of all human rights and fundamental freedoms is „beyond question“. The unquestionable universality of human rights is presented in the context of the reaffirmation of the obligation of States to promote and protect human rights.
The legal obligation is reaffirmed for all States to promote „universal respect for, and observance and protection of, all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all“. It is clearly stated that the obligation of States is to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights. Not selective, not relative, but universal respect, observance and protection.
Furthermore, the obligation is established for all States, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and other instruments of human rights and international law. No State is exempt from this obligation. All Member States of the United Nations have a legal obligation to promote and protect human rights, regardless of particular cultural perspectives. Universal human rights protection and promotion are asserted in the Vienna Declaration as the „first responsibility“ of all Governments.
Everyone is entitled to human rights without discrimination of any kind. The non-discrimination principle is a fundamental rule of international law. This means that human rights are for all human beings, regardless of „race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status“. Non-discrimination protects individuals and groups against the denial and violation of their human rights. To deny human rights on the grounds of cultural distinction is discriminatory. Human rights are intended for everyone, in every culture.
Human rights are the birthright of every person. If a State dismisses universal human rights on the basis of cultural relativism, then rights would be denied to the persons living under that State’s authority. The denial or abuse of human rights is wrong, regardless of the violator’s culture.
Human Rights, Cultural Integrity and Diversity
Universal human rights do not impose one cultural standard, rather one legal standard of minimum protection necessary for human dignity. As a legal standard adopted through the United Nations, universal human rights represent the hard-won consensus of the international community, not the cultural imperialism of any particular region or set of traditions.
Like most areas of international law, universal human rights are a modern achievement, new to all cultures. Human rights are neither representative of, nor oriented towards, one culture to the exclusion of others. Universal human rights reflect the dynamic, coordinated efforts of the international community to achieve and advance a common standard and international system of law to protect human dignity.
Inherent Flexibility
Out of this process, universal human rights emerge with sufficient flexibility to respect and protect cultural diversity and integrity. The flexibility of human rights to be relevant to diverse cultures is facilitated by the establishment of minimum standards and the incorporation of cultural rights.
The instruments establish minimum standards for economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights. Within this framework, States have maximum room for cultural variation without diluting or compromising the minimum standards of human rights established by law. These minimum standards are in fact quite high , requiring from the State a very high level of performance in the field of human rights.
The Vienna Declaration provides explicit consideration for culture in human rights promotion and protection, stating that „the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind“. This is deliberately acknowledged in the context of the duty of States to promote and protect human rights regardless of their cultural systems. While its importance is recognized, cultural consideration in no way diminishes States‘ human rights obligations.
Most directly, human rights facilitate respect for and protection of cultural diversity and integrity, through the establishment of cultural rights embodied in instruments of human rights law. These include: the International Bill of Rights; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice; the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief; the Declaration on the Principles of International Cultural Cooperation; the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities; the Declaration on the Right to Development; the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families; and the ILO Convention No. 169 on the Rights of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples.
Human rights which relate to cultural diversity and integrity encompass a wide range of protections, including: the right to cultural participation; the right to enjoy the arts; conservation, development and diffusion of culture; protection of cultural heritage; freedom for creative activity; protection of persons belonging to ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities; freedom of assembly and association; the right to education; freedom of thought, conscience or religion; freedom of opinion and expression; and the principle of non-discrimination.
Cultural Rights
Every human being has the right to culture, including the right to enjoy and develop cultural life and identity. Cultural rights, however, are not unlimited. The right to culture is limited at the point at which it infringes on another human right. No right can be used at the expense or destruction of another, in accordance with international law.
This means that cultural rights cannot be invoked or interpreted in such a way as to justify any act leading to the denial or violation of other human rights and fundamental freedoms. As such, claiming cultural relativism as an excuse to violate or deny human rights is an abuse of the right to culture.
There are legitimate, substantive limitations on cultural practices, even on well-entrenched traditions. For example, no culture today can legitimately claim a right to practise slavery. Despite its practice in many cultures throughout history, slavery today cannot be considered legitimate, legal, or part of a cultural legacy entitled to protection in any way. To the contrary, all forms of slavery, including contemporary slavery-like practices, are a gross violation of human rights under international law.
Similarly, cultural rights do not justify torture, murder, genocide, discrimination on grounds of sex, race, language or religion, or violation of any of the other universal human rights and fundamental freedoms established in international law. Any attempts to justify such violations on the basis of culture have no validity under international law.
A Cultural Context
The argument of cultural relativism frequently includes or leads to the assertion that traditional culture is sufficient to protect human dignity, and therefore universal human rights are unnecessary. Furthermore, the argument continues, universal human rights can be intrusive and disruptive to traditional protection of human life, liberty and security.
When traditional culture does effectively provide such protection, then human rights by definition would be compatible, posing no threat to the traditional culture. As such, the traditional culture can absorb and apply human rights, and the governing State should be in a better position not only to ratify, but to effectively and fully implement, the international standards.
Traditional culture is not a substitute for human rights; it is a cultural context in which human rights must be established, integrated, promoted and protected. Human rights must be approached in a way that is meaningful and relevant in diverse cultural contexts.
Rather than limit human rights to suit a given culture, why not draw on traditional cultural values to reinforce the application and relevance of universal human rights? There is an increased need to emphasize the common, core values shared by all cultures: the value of life, social order and protection from arbitrary rule. These basic values are embodied in human rights.
Traditional cultures should be approached and recognized as partners to promote greater respect for and observance of human rights. Drawing on compatible practices and common values from traditional cultures would enhance and advance human rights promotion and protection. This approach not only encourages greater tolerance, mutual respect and understanding, but also fosters more effective international cooperation for human rights.
Greater understanding of the ways in which traditional cultures protect the well-being of their people would illuminate the common foundation of human dignity on which human rights promotion and protection stand. This insight would enable human rights advocacy to assert the cultural relevance, as well as the legal obligation, of universal human rights in diverse cultural contexts. Recognition and appreciation of particular cultural contexts would serve to facilitate, rather than reduce, human rights respect and observance.
Working in this way with particular cultures inherently recognizes cultural integrity and diversity, without compromising or diluting the unquestionably universal standard of human rights. Such an approach is essential to ensure that the future will be guided above all by human rights, non-discrimination, tolerance and cultural pluralism.
Universal Human Rights and Cultural BIODIVERSITY
http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1627e.htm
Oil and Gas Lybia: http://oilandgas.einnews.com/news/pipelines/libya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eni
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Economy
http://www.amnesty.org/en/economic-social-and-cultural-rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights
THE NOMAD & SEMINOMADS DWINDELING CULTURE , HERITAGE AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN LYBIA
In the mid-1970s, the nomads and seminomads who made up most of the effective tribal population were rapidly dwindling in numbers. Tent dwellers numbered an estimated 200,000 in 1973, less than 10 percent of the population, as compared with about 320,000 nomads in 1964. Most of them lived in the extreme north of the country.
Libya – Tribes – A key factor in maintaining Muammar Qadhafi’s regime has been his manipulation of Libya’s tribal allegiances, much as Saddam Hussein did in Iraq. By Libyan standards, Qadhafi’s own tribe, the Ghadafa [Qadhadhfah], is a small and insignificant tribe. The Qadhadhfah are an Arabised Berber tribe, traceing its roots to Sidi Qadhafaddam, a well-known wali (saint) buried in Al-Gharyan, south of Tripoli. The Qadhadhfah consider themselves murabitoun (saintly) and Ashraf (of the lineage of the Prophet). The Qadhadhfah were driven to the desert around Sirte by an alliance of tribes from the Sa’adi confederation, led by the Bara’sa (the tribe that Qadhafi’s wife, Farkash al-Haddad al-Bara’sa, comes from) and the Maghara. Qadhafi’s Qadhdhadfa tribe relies on a confederation with other tribes to remain in power.
Any loosening of Qadhafi’s extensive patronage network would narrow the base of his regime and potentially undermine his ability to rule. By 20 February 2011 the Toureg, Warfalla and Hasawna tribes had defected to the anti-Gaddafi side. The Warfella tribe had traditionally provided many security force personnel. Akram al-Warfelli, a leading figure of the Warfella tribe, one of Libya’s largest, called for Qadhafi to stand down. „We tell the brother (Ghadaffi), he’s no longer a brother, we tell him to leave the country“, he told Al-Jazeera. Sheikh Faraj al-Zuway from the Zuwayya tribe in the oil-rich south threatened to cut off Libyan oil exports unless the violence against the protesters is stopped.
From the earliest times the movement of the Libyan tribes toward the east is recorded in the annals of the Egyptian monarchy. In the third dynasty—according to the chronology of Mariette some 4200 years B. C.—the incursions of the Temhu (the Touaregs ?) are mentioned. In the eighteenth dynasty (1703-1462 B.C.) the mother of Amenhotep IV. is represented as a blonde with blue eyes, and bore the name, at once Libyan and Etruscan, of “ Taia.“ She was probably a Libyan by birth. The most important general migration of the Libyan tribes seems to have taken place about 1300 years BC. . At that time, an inscription of Meneptah II on the wall of the great temple of Ammon at Api, relates that the king of the land of Libit, by name Mar-ajui, a son of Did, led a great army composed of his own troops and mercenaries from other nations into Egypt, entering near the city of Prosopis. He was defeated with heavy loss, and many thousands of his soldiery were slain.
Herodotus enumerated the Libyan tribes of Cyrenaica from east to west, starting at the Egyptian border: the Adyrmachidæ, the Giligammæ, the Asbystæ, the Auschisæ, the Nasamonians, the Psylli, and then, to the south, the Garamantes (who later rose to prominence as trading partners with Rome). Tribal names and their incidence over a given area, cities and their sites, are historical facts of the objective order, sometimes, indeed, verifiable by material evidence open to inspection to-day, but often in the nature of the case only ascertainable by testimony. For this class of problems, in this kind of evidence, the work of Herodotus possesses great authority.
Italian hegemony altered the bases of social distinction somewhat, but the change was superficial and transitory; unlike the other Maghribi countries, Libya did not receive a heavy infusion of European culture. As a result, the Libyan urban elite did not suffer the same cultural estrangement from the mass of the people that occurred elsewhere in North Africa. At the end of the colonial period, vestiges of Italian influence dropped quickly, and Arab Muslim culture began to reassert itself.
Before independence rural Libyans looked upon their tribal, village, and family leaders as the true sources of authority, and, in this sense, as their social elite. Appointments to government positions were largely political matters, and most permanent government jobs were allocated through patronage. Local governments were controlled largely by traditional tribal leaders who were able to dispense patronage and thus to perpetuate their influence in the changing circumstances that attended the discovery of oil.
The basic social units were the extended family, clan, and tribe. All three were the primary economic, educational, and welfare-providing units of their members. Individuals were expected to subordinate themselves and their interests to those units and to obey the demands they made. The family was the most important focus of attention and loyalty and source of security, followed by the tribe. In most cases, the most powerful family of a clan provided tribal leadership and determined the reputation and power of the tribe.
Various criteria were used to evaluate individuals as well as families in the competition for preeminence. Lineage, wealth, and piety were among the most prominent. Throughout Libya’s history, and especially during the period of the monarchy, family prominence and religious leadership became closely intertwined. Indeed, religious leadership tended to reside within selected family groupings throughout the country and to be passed successively from generation to generation. By the 1960s, local elites were still composed of individuals or families who owed their status to these same criteria. Local elites retained their position and legitimacy well into the mid-1970s, by which time the revolutionary government had attempted to dislodge them, often without success.
Rural social structures were tribally based, with the nomadic and seminomadic tribesmen organized into highly segmented units, as exemplified by the Sanusi of Cyrenaica (see The Sanusis , this ch.). Originally, tribe members had been nomads, some of the beduin tracing their origins to the Arabian Peninsula. Pride in tribal membership remained strong, despite the fact that many nomads had become sedentary. At the same time, tribally based social organization, values, and world view raised formidable obstacles to the creation of a modern nation-state, because there were virtually no integrative or unifying institutions or social customs on the national level.
In the mid-1970s, the nomads and seminomads who made up most of the effective tribal population were rapidly dwindling in numbers. Tent dwellers numbered an estimated 200,000 in 1973, less than 10 percent of the population, as compared with about 320,000 nomads in 1964. Most of them lived in the extreme north of the country. (misrata and oil terminal, habor areas ?)
By this time, the revolutionary government had come to look upon tribal organization and values as antithetical to its policies. Even Qadhafi, despite his beduin roots, viewed tribes as anachronistic and as obstacles to modernization. Consequently, the government sought to break the links between the rural population and its traditional leaders by focusing attention on a new elite–the modernizers who represented the new leadership. The countryside was divided into zones that crossed old tribal boundaries, combining different tribes in a common zone and splitting tribes in a manner that weakened traditional institutions and the force of local kinship. The ancient ascriptive qualifications for leadership–lineage, piety, wealth–gave way to competence and education as determined by formal examination.
Tribal leaders, however, scoffed at efforts encouraging members to drop tribal affiliations, and pride in tribal lineage remained strong. This was remarkable in light of the fact that many tribes had long ago shed their beduin trappings and had become agrarian villagers. In effect, the government had brought about the abolition of the tribal system but not the memories of tribal allegiance. According to a 1977 report, a survey of tribes had found that more than three-fourths of the members canvassed were still proud of their tribe and of their membership in it. Yet the attitude shown was a generally mild one; there was little opposition to the new programs and some recognition of the government’s efforts on their behalf.
Individuals subordinated their personal interests to those of the family and considered themselves to be members of a group whose importance outweighed their own. Loyalty to family, clan, and tribe outweighed loyalty to a profession or class and inhibited the emergence of new leaders and a professional elite.
Marriage is more a family than a personal affair and a civil contract rather than a religious act. Because the sexes generally were unable to mix socially, young men and women enjoyed few acquaintances among the opposite sex. Parents arranged marriages for their children, finding a mate either through their own social contacts or through a professional matchmaker. Unions between the children of brothers were customarily preferred, or at least matches between close relatives or within the same tribe.
SOURCE: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/libya/tribes.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_heritage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intangible_cultural_heritage
|
Comments are closed.
