Reframing the Boundaries of Indigeneity: State‐Based Ontologies and Assertions of Distinction and Compatibility in Thailand

Morton, Micah F.

doi:10.1111/aman.12948

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Beyond the US settler context, the concept of entangled sovereignties demonstrates that sovereignty everywhere is relational and mutually interdependent. This approach to sovereignty also resonates with work on indigeneity elsewhere, such as Micah Morton's () analysis of the shifting terms of possibility for self‐defined Indigenous peoples in Thailand who desire not only forms of self‐determination but also simultaneously forms of state recognition and national belonging.…”

Section: Temporality Mobility and Sovereigntymentioning

confidence: 78%

Time and Relational Possibility: Cultural Anthropology in 2017

Tamarkin

2018

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay reviews work produced in predominantly US cultural anthropology publications throughout 2017. It asks: What makes an anthropological inquiry timely, what sorts of relationalities command anthropological attention, and to what end? Noting our ongoing methodological commitment to long-term ethnography alongside increasingly important online forums for reaching broader publics and responding quickly to emerging issues, it expands the range of work surveyed to include some online-only short essays alongside the larger collection of traditionally published research articles. Characterized by empathic inquiry, frequently drawing on years of ethnographic and personal experience with the places, people, and other entities that we write about, and often attentive to histories at multiple scales, cultural anthropology of this moment, however published, grapples with dark times while it also offers ways of imagining other, better futures and ways of being in relation to others. Two thematic clusters organize this essay: the first considers temporality alongside mobility and sovereignty, and the second considers relationality alongside subjectivity and mediation. Together, all of these concerns-that are both of the moment and long standing-build a varied body of work that grapples with the interrelationalities that constitute power, place, and possibility. I argue that what makes an anthropological inquiry timely is the extent to which it is relationally informed and attuned to care for worlds that we inhabit and imagine, together. [year in review, sociocultural anthropology, temporality, mobility, sovereignty, relationality, subjectivity, mediation] RESUMEN Este ensayo revisa el trabajo producido en publicaciones de antropología cultural predominantemente estadounidenses durante 2017. Pregunta: ¿Qué hace la investigación antropológica oportuna, y qué tipos de relacionalidades comandan la atención antropológica, y con qué fin? Notando nuestro compromiso metodológico continuo con una etnografía de largo plazo junto a foros en línea cada vez más importantes para llegar a públicos más amplios y respondiendo rápidamente a cuestiones emergentes, expande el rango del trabajo evaluado para incluir algunos ensayos cortos sólo en línea junto a la mayor colección de artículos de investigación publicados tradicionalmente. Caracterizada por una investigación empática, frecuentemente extrayendo de años de experiencia etnográfica y personal con los lugares, la gente, y otras entidades sobre las que escribimos, y a menudo atentos a historias a escalas múltiples, la antropología cultural de este momento, independientemente de cómo sea publicada, lucha contra tiempos oscuros mientras ofrece maneras de imaginar otros, mejores futuros y formas de estar en relación con otros. Dos grupos temáticos organizan este ensayo: el primero considera temporalidad junto a movilidad y soberanía, y el segundo considera relacionalidad junto a subjetividad y mediación. Juntas, todas estas preocupaciones-que son tanto del momento como de larga d...

show abstract

Section: Temporality Mobility and Sovereigntymentioning

confidence: 78%

Time and Relational Possibility: Cultural Anthropology in 2017

Tamarkin

2018

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Objects are not subalterns. Such identification is not only extremely dehumanising, but it reinforces and supports once again the colonial and expansionist agenda of many countries and ethnic majorities, in the views of whom Indigenous people are terrorists, as in the case of the Mapuche in Chile (Millaleo 2021; Pairican and Urrutia 2021); 'wild animals', as in the case of the Gumuz in Ethiopia (González Ruibal 2014, 92); or simply non-existent, as in the case of the Akha, Dara'ang, Hmong, Iu-Mien, Kachin, Karen, Lahu, Lisu, Lua and Shan in Thailand (Morton 2017), to name only few examples. Equating objects with people as subalternised Others -being spoken for/vertreten (Spivak 1988b)-by archaeologists has severe ethical slippages, to say the least.…”

Section: Speech Actsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ceci n’est pas un subalterne. A Comment on Indigenous Erasure in Ontology-Related Archaeologies

Marín-Aguilera

2021

Arch. Dial.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the legal recognition of these peoples does not necessarily have to guarantee the observance of their collective and individual rights as long as the law is not actually implemented (Indigenous Peoples and ASEAN Integration 2015, p. 44. For more details see Morton 2017a).…”

Section: Indigenous Peoples and Their Characteristic Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Saami and the Karen — common experience and differences: a comparative perspective

Szpak

Ochwat

2021

Asia Eur J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper offers a comparative perspective on a specific issue of the indigenous peoples of the Saami and the Karen. The groups being compared are from Europe and Asia, selected on the basis of their particular circumstances of living in more than one State. However, while the Saami are a relatively well-treated people that enjoy a form of cultural autonomy; the Karen are in a far worse situation with regard to their legal position as well as actual living conditions. The authors examine the cultural, political, and legal aspects of the Saami and the Karen situations and compare their common experience and aspirations. The article attempts to answer the question as to what the similarities and differences between the two indigenous peoples are and what lessons can be learned by those peoples that may be helpful in realizing their aspirations.

show abstract

Reframing the Boundaries of Indigeneity: State‐Based Ontologies and Assertions of Distinction and Compatibility in Thailand

Cited by 8 publications

References 27 publications

Time and Relational Possibility: Cultural Anthropology in 2017

Time and Relational Possibility: Cultural Anthropology in 2017

Ceci n’est pas un subalterne. A Comment on Indigenous Erasure in Ontology-Related Archaeologies

The Saami and the Karen — common experience and differences: a comparative perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About