Indigeneity

Abstract

The term indigenous, long used to distinguish between those who are "native" and their "others" in specific locales, has also become a term for a geocultural category, presupposing a world collectivity of "indigenous peoples" in contrast to their various "others." Many observers have noted that the stimuli for internationalization of the indigenous category originated principally from particular nation-states-Anglo-American settler colonies and Scandinavia. All, I argue, are relevantly political cultures of liberal democracy and weighty (in different ways) in international institutional affairs. However, international indigeneity has not been supported in any unqualified way by actions taken in the name of several nation-states that were among its main points of origin. In fact, staunch resistance to the international indigenous project has recently come from four of them. In 2007, the only four voting countries to reject the main product of international indigenist activity over the past 30 years, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, were Australia, the United States, Canada, and New Zealand. In these locations, forms of "indigenous relationship" emerged that launched international indigeneity and that strongly influenced international perceptions of what "indigeneity" is and who "indigenous peoples" may be. Some other countries say the model of indigenous relationship that they see represented by the "establishing" set is inapplicable to themselves (but have nonetheless had to take notice of expanding internationalist indigenism). The apparently paradoxical rejection of the draft declaration by the establishing countries is consistent with the combination of enabling and constraining forces that liberal democratic political cultures offer.

I am Ngaitai – Ko Ahau te Uri: A discovery of Indigeneity

“…(United Nations, 2018) Sound daunting? Merlan (2009) explains "there has been acceptances, rejections and strategic uses of the concept of indigeneity" and that "concepts drawn from internationalist indigeneity are used strategically in a range of contexts". She goes on to explain that "The principal institutional home of international indigenism is within the United Nations system", including states that claim indigenous and indigeneity does not apply to them.…”

“…She goes on to explain that "The principal institutional home of international indigenism is within the United Nations system", including states that claim indigenous and indigeneity does not apply to them. (p. 303) Merlan (2009) also states that some "critics of the novote saw this as a serious tactical error making the four states stand out as colonial, white and anachronistic in a world where de-colonisation was taking place". Such a strong statement where there is now history in a political realm on the human rights of indigenous peoples.…”

“The Colonos Come in Like Termites to Take Our Land”: A Study of Indigenous Leadership, Women Representatives, and Conflict in the Bolivian Amazon

“…As the work of many indigenous leaders today is linked to regional, national, and international networks involving branches of the UN, ILO, and other supranational bodies of influence (see Niezen 2010;Merlan 2009;Muehlebach 2001), knowledge of national and international legislation on indigenous rights as well as personal experience with government and administration have come to count as important qualifications for indigenous leadership, somewhat superseding previously crucial kinship ties and rainforest survival skills. Contemporary indigenous leaders, whether working in indigenous organizations or elected to positions in governmental structures, are generally required to adapt to life in urban environments far removed from their indigenous communities.…”

Abandoning “the Other”: Statistical Enumeration of Swedish Sami, 1700 to 1945 and Beyond

“…They successfully instituted their own parliaments in Finland, Norway, and Sweden; and since the 1970s, they have been part of the core group of actors that helped to establish and design the UNPFII. 8 In spite of these achievements, the Sami are not included in the national statistics for any of the Scan-dinavian countries -although they previously were. Sweden ended the enumeration abruptly after World War II, thereby terminating a tradition that reached back to the mid-eighteenth century.…”