Complexities of indigeneity and autochthony: An African example

Abstract

In this article, I deal with the complexities of “indigeneity” and “autochthony,” two distinct yet closely interrelated concepts used by various actors in local, national, and international arenas in Africa and elsewhere. With the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the United Nations General Assembly in September 2007, hopes were high among activists and organizations that the precarious situation of many minority groups might be gradually improved. However, sharing the concerns of other scholars, I argue that discourses of indigeneity and autochthony are highly politicized, are subject to local and national particularities, and produce ambivalent, sometimes paradoxical, outcomes. My elaborations are based on in‐depth knowledge of the case of the Mbororo in Cameroon, a pastoralist group and national minority recognized by the United Nations as an “indigenous people” although locally perceived as “strangers” and “migrants.” For comparative purposes, and drawing on related studies, I integrate the Bagyeli and Baka (also known as Pygmies) of southern and southeastern Cameroon into my analysis, as they share the designation of indigenous people with the Mbororo and face similar predicaments. [indigeneity, autochthony, identity, United Nations, Cameroon]

Brave New Words: The Complexities and Possibilities of an “Indigenous” Identity in French Polynesia and New Caledonia

“…10 For historic reasons, autochtone is the preferred term in French since the word indigène is directly associated with the legal status assigned to the subjects-in contrast with the citizens-of the French colonial empire. For a discussion on the uses by various actors in local, national, and international contexts of the two distinct yet closely interrelated concepts of "indigeneity" and "autochthony," in particular in relation to Africa, see Pelican 2009 andGausset, Kenrick, andGibb 2011. 11 This is very striking in the French social sciences. A decade ago, there was nothing resembling a research field called "indigenous studies," even though researchers have been doing research among indigenous populations of the Americas, Africa, and Oceania for a long time.…”

The Challenges of and from Indigenous Geographies

“…Historically, the two terms emphasized similar traits: originariness, legitimated authority and fi delity of culture with place. Today, however, autochthony is more closely aligned with the coincidence of people and place, whereas Indigeneity extends to Indigenous peoples ' engagement with cultural others and social processes beyond their normatively assumed rangelands (Pelican 2009 ). Likewise, Indigeneity transcends territorial connection to include moral claims against neo/colonial administration.…”

“…4 Researchers who work with Indigenous communities are often reticent about adopting this logic, but it has some acceptance beyond the academy. The disproportionate attention of settler states towards the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples framed it as a pervasive threat to White Anglo culture (Pelican 2009 ). Lay publics in Canada, the USA, Australia, and New Zealand who pleaded successfully with their governments to hold out the longest against signing the declaration seem to understand that a shift in the relative positioning of Indigeneity portends transfi guration of their own culture and status.…”

Adat and Indigeneity in Indonesia: Culture and Entitlements between Heteronomy and Self-Ascription

“…(Li 2007b:343) Of course, the problem behind these assumptions, in local as well as in international debates, is complex. While Li speaks about the "difficulty of locating the perfect adat subject" (Li 2007b), the same accounts for global discourse, where a general definition of indigenous people is a highly political and tricky issue (see the chapters by Göcke and Cabrera, this volume; see also Dove 2006;Hodgson 2002;Kuper 2003;Pelican 2009), leaving "anthropologists anxious about the concept" (Dove 2006:194) of indigeneity itself. This anthropological "over-concern" concerning the definition of indigeneity led Dove to the following question: "What do we make of the extraordinary coincidence that anthropology (and the social sciences) began to critique the concept of indigeneity at the very time that it was being legitimised by mainstream global organizations like the United Nations and the International Labour Organization?"…”