Who is indigenous?

Sat Jan 19 00:05:30 UTC 2013

The question of who is indigenous was at the center of a firestorm in anthropology a few years back when Adam Kuper published a really annoying article in Current Anthropology arguing that anthropologists should abandon the category because it is aligned with fascists in Britain and elsewhere in Europe (Current Anthropology Volume 44, Number 3, June 2003). The heart of the problem is context. Being indigenous in the Americas, Australia, Pacific is associated with being a severely oppressed minority in one's own homeland, where the decedents of European colonists have dispossessed people with darker skin and radically different languages and cultures than Europeans. In the last 20-30 years, the last generation, indigenous people in North & South America, Greenland, Australia have been able to leverage an indigenous identity into some political power that has resulted in some slight amelioration of a deplorable situation. Many of these people are associated with a "Fourth World", and perhaps that is a good way to define the politically progressive indigenous from the fascist indigenous. Indigeneity in the first world is fascist, in the third world it is resistance against physical, cultural and linguistic extermination. Thus, Kuper (or, rather, his argument) was severely beaten about the head and neck in Current Anthropology Volume 45, Number 2, April 2004 by a string of anthropologists working with people self-identifying as indigenous.

The politics of indigeneity are stickier in places like Africa and Asia. In Siberia, where I work, one can also see Russians as settler colonists much like in the Americas. However, what about Buriats in south Siberia vs. Orochen? In India there are "listed tribes" which are in a situation much like indigenous Americans vis a vis Hindu and Moslem mainstream, similar in Malaysia and Indonesia. Again, the point is one of power and demography. Batek in Malaysia are no more or less indigenous than their Malay neighbors in terms of residence and geneaology, but they are an economically disadvantaged and politically disenfranchised minority with their way of life threatened by deforestation in a way fundamentally different from a poor Malay farmer who may not have any more capital than the Batek forest dweller.

In terms of politics and action, this is not really that difficult of a problem to solve. The real problem is when bureaucrats and politicians look for universal category that are applicable in a philosophically logical way to all peoples in all places in all times. That is when it is time to pull out Post Modern Critique 101. The main point I take from the po-mo critique in anthropology is NOT that truth is relative (bad idea), but that trying to construct a universal for all people everywhere is nothing more than imposing a single cultural perspective (usually European) on everyone else, and that is fundamentally unjust and often results in a bigger mess than the one that the philosopher kings were trying to fix.

best wishes,
Alex

PS. My book, Living with Koryak Traditions: Playing with Culture in Siberia (http://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/product/Living-with-Koryak-Traditions,674798.aspx) is relevant to some degree and it doesn't suck, if you want to check it out.

On 8 Jan, 2013, at 4:17 AM, Dave Sayers <D.Sayers at SWANSEA.AC.UK> wrote:

> Hello one and all,
>
> I do hope the new year is treating you all well so far, and that you managed to get some sort of a
> break during the festivities. I'm well and truly back in harness, and I hope I'm not butting into
> anyone's continued vacation with this question, especially one that has turned out to be such a
> monster as I've written it. (I also apologise for cross-posting.) Well, here goes...
>
> In language policy research, I've always been struck by the implicitness of the meaning of
> 'indigenous', usually referring to those with the oldest known historical ancestry in a given
> location. One example that comes to mind is Nancy Hornberger's 1998 article:
>
> http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=28435
>
> Since 1998, the emphasis on education has been increasingly called into question (including by Nancy
> Hornberger, I hasten to add), but I haven't really seen the same critical deconstruction of what
> 'indigenous' means -- either in language policy or elsewhere. I hope I'm just looking in the wrong
> places and that the debate is alive and well, somewhere. From what I have seen in language policy
> research, the meaning of 'indigenous' is complex and varied...
>
> In some cases, it's highly politically salient, defined starkly against the backdrop of historical
> injustice and present-day inequalities (e.g. USA, Australia, Canada). Language policy is often a
> central aspect of such debates. The indigenous people are typically socially excluded, poorer, with
> relatively high rates of incarceration, alcohol and drug dependence, shorter life expectancy and so
> on. (I do have concerns about quite how substantively language policy in these contexts is actually
> motivated by concerns over material human wellbeing, but that's another matter.)
>
> In other cases, the picture is very different. In much of Europe, 'indigenous' is a term used often
> by elements of the political far right, in contrast to 'immigrants', those with more recent
> ancestries on other shores. In these cases though, the 'indigenous' ones are relatively privileged,
> while the 'immigrants' tend to be socially excluded, poorer, etc. 'Indigenous' in these contexts is
> seldom equated explicitly to the struggles of, for example, Native Americans. I'm not suggesting
> this is the case in all of Europe, of course. My point is that 'indigenous' in European contexts is
> a varied condition -- some richer, some poorer, and variously the beneficiaries and the dispossessed
> in different historical struggles.
>
> The longer histories of migration and conquest in Europe mean that 'indigenous' is much harder to
> define based on original inhabitation of a given location. The English popularly like to define
> themselves as Anglo-Saxons since time immemorial, but try telling that to the sixth century Britons
> as they were driven ever further westward by successive waves of Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Franks
> (who were themselves later shoved around by the Vikings for a few centuries, and so on and so on).
>
> Defining an indigenous Brit these days continues to embarrass the British far right (no bad thing).
> But whatever its meaning, it isn't strictly "us what was here first". Nevertheless (and back to my
> original question), I've always wondered what is meant by 'indigenous' in these historically more
> convoluted cases, in language policy research. Where the term is used in LP research, I've tended to
> find it mainly as a contrast with (im)migrants (not in a far-right type of way, but
> just as a way to counter-define). That in turn begs the more important question: If the Anglo-Saxons
> ultimately 'became indigenous', then how long should others wait to qualify for indigenous status?
> How many centuries do you have to be around?
>
> The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages might not actually use the word
> "indigenous", but its somewhat mealy-mouthed focus on "languages that are traditionally used within
> a given territory of a State" is placed in contrast to the "languages of migrants", which it
> excludes. I've seen Anthea Fraser Gupta call the ECRML a racist document for this reason, which is a
> fair heckle to an extent. Without wanting to put words in Anthea FG's mouth, I took her point to be
> that languages like Hindi have a centuries-long 'tradition' in, say, parts of the UK, but they just
> happen to be associated with ethnic groups whose migration is ongoing, not ancient history -- yet
> those languages are perfectly 'traditional' in those parts of the UK. If 'traditional' here is a
> kind of definition of indigeneity, then how long, in years, is 'traditional'?
>
> The conundrum for the creators of the ECRML (and let's remember it took 8 years to write, so there
> were bound to be compromises made and corners trimmed) was that Europe is host to hundreds of
> languages, depending on the measure, and so protecting all of them would be practicably impossible.
> But the next question is: well, why not decide on an actual definition of how long it takes to be
> counted as 'indigenous', or 'traditional' etc., after which you can join the club? We've already
> established that it isn't based on being there first, and that it is just a matter of time (e.g.
> Anglo-Saxons). I doubt the current 'minorities' of Europe will all count themselves as
> non-indigenous in a few hundred years' time. So how long is it?
>
> I'm not really looking for an answer in the form of X years. I'm really hoping for this idea of
> 'indigenous' to be picked apart and ultimately discarded, as it doesn't seem helpful to any but
> those on the far right (and it's not particularly helpful to them; it's so nebulous it just makes
> them look silly). I'm not trying to rhetorically equate anyone who uses that word with far right
> extremists! But I am asking... after all this... am I re-inventing the wheel with all of the above?
> Has there been a decent deconstruction of the 'indigenous' label, either in language policy research
> or elsewhere? If so, please let me know as I've run out of leads. If not, then let's start it...!
>
> All the best,
> Dave
>
> --
> Dr. Dave Sayers
> Honorary Research Fellow, Arts & Humanities, Swansea University
> and Visiting Lecturer (2012-2013), Dept English, Åbo Akademi University
> dave.sayers at cantab.net
> http://swansea.academia.edu/DaveSayers

———————————
I am conducting linguistic research in Kamchatka and have very low bandwidth. Please do not send messages larger than 1MB. Less is more.

http://www.koryaks.net/blog
http://elar.soas.ac.uk/deposit/koryak-140247
Tweet @Ememqut01

———————————
I am conducting linguistic research in Kamchatka and have very low bandwidth. Please do not send messages larger than 1MB. Less is more.

http://www.koryaks.net/blog
http://elar.soas.ac.uk/deposit/koryak-140247
Tweet @Ememqut01

On 8 Jan, 2013, at 4:17 AM, Dave Sayers <D.Sayers at SWANSEA.AC.UK> wrote:

> Hello one and all,
>
> I do hope the new year is treating you all well so far, and that you managed to get some sort of a
> break during the festivities. I'm well and truly back in harness, and I hope I'm not butting into
> anyone's continued vacation with this question, especially one that has turned out to be such a
> monster as I've written it. (I also apologise for cross-posting.) Well, here goes...
>
> In language policy research, I've always been struck by the implicitness of the meaning of
> 'indigenous', usually referring to those with the oldest known historical ancestry in a given
> location. One example that comes to mind is Nancy Hornberger's 1998 article:
>
> http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=28435
>
> Since 1998, the emphasis on education has been increasingly called into question (including by Nancy
> Hornberger, I hasten to add), but I haven't really seen the same critical deconstruction of what
> 'indigenous' means -- either in language policy or elsewhere. I hope I'm just looking in the wrong
> places and that the debate is alive and well, somewhere. From what I have seen in language policy
> research, the meaning of 'indigenous' is complex and varied...
>
> In some cases, it's highly politically salient, defined starkly against the backdrop of historical
> injustice and present-day inequalities (e.g. USA, Australia, Canada). Language policy is often a
> central aspect of such debates. The indigenous people are typically socially excluded, poorer, with
> relatively high rates of incarceration, alcohol and drug dependence, shorter life expectancy and so
> on. (I do have concerns about quite how substantively language policy in these contexts is actually
> motivated by concerns over material human wellbeing, but that's another matter.)
>
> In other cases, the picture is very different. In much of Europe, 'indigenous' is a term used often
> by elements of the political far right, in contrast to 'immigrants', those with more recent
> ancestries on other shores. In these cases though, the 'indigenous' ones are relatively privileged,
> while the 'immigrants' tend to be socially excluded, poorer, etc. 'Indigenous' in these contexts is
> seldom equated explicitly to the struggles of, for example, Native Americans. I'm not suggesting
> this is the case in all of Europe, of course. My point is that 'indigenous' in European contexts is
> a varied condition -- some richer, some poorer, and variously the beneficiaries and the dispossessed
> in different historical struggles.
>
> The longer histories of migration and conquest in Europe mean that 'indigenous' is much harder to
> define based on original inhabitation of a given location. The English popularly like to define
> themselves as Anglo-Saxons since time immemorial, but try telling that to the sixth century Britons
> as they were driven ever further westward by successive waves of Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Franks
> (who were themselves later shoved around by the Vikings for a few centuries, and so on and so on).
>
> Defining an indigenous Brit these days continues to embarrass the British far right (no bad thing).
> But whatever its meaning, it isn't strictly "us what was here first". Nevertheless (and back to my
> original question), I've always wondered what is meant by 'indigenous' in these historically more
> convoluted cases, in language policy research. Where the term is used in LP research, I've tended to
> find it mainly as a contrast with (im)migrants (not in a far-right type of way, but
> just as a way to counter-define). That in turn begs the more important question: If the Anglo-Saxons
> ultimately 'became indigenous', then how long should others wait to qualify for indigenous status?
> How many centuries do you have to be around?
>
> The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages might not actually use the word
> "indigenous", but its somewhat mealy-mouthed focus on "languages that are traditionally used within
> a given territory of a State" is placed in contrast to the "languages of migrants", which it
> excludes. I've seen Anthea Fraser Gupta call the ECRML a racist document for this reason, which is a
> fair heckle to an extent. Without wanting to put words in Anthea FG's mouth, I took her point to be
> that languages like Hindi have a centuries-long 'tradition' in, say, parts of the UK, but they just
> happen to be associated with ethnic groups whose migration is ongoing, not ancient history -- yet
> those languages are perfectly 'traditional' in those parts of the UK. If 'traditional' here is a
> kind of definition of indigeneity, then how long, in years, is 'traditional'?
>
> The conundrum for the creators of the ECRML (and let's remember it took 8 years to write, so there
> were bound to be compromises made and corners trimmed) was that Europe is host to hundreds of
> languages, depending on the measure, and so protecting all of them would be practicably impossible.
> But the next question is: well, why not decide on an actual definition of how long it takes to be
> counted as 'indigenous', or 'traditional' etc., after which you can join the club? We've already
> established that it isn't based on being there first, and that it is just a matter of time (e.g.
> Anglo-Saxons). I doubt the current 'minorities' of Europe will all count themselves as
> non-indigenous in a few hundred years' time. So how long is it?
>
> I'm not really looking for an answer in the form of X years. I'm really hoping for this idea of
> 'indigenous' to be picked apart and ultimately discarded, as it doesn't seem helpful to any but
> those on the far right (and it's not particularly helpful to them; it's so nebulous it just makes
> them look silly). I'm not trying to rhetorically equate anyone who uses that word with far right
> extremists! But I am asking... after all this... am I re-inventing the wheel with all of the above?
> Has there been a decent deconstruction of the 'indigenous' label, either in language policy research
> or elsewhere? If so, please let me know as I've run out of leads. If not, then let's start it...!
>
> All the best,
> Dave
>
> --
> Dr. Dave Sayers
> Honorary Research Fellow, Arts & Humanities, Swansea University
> and Visiting Lecturer (2012-2013), Dept English, Åbo Akademi University
> dave.sayers at cantab.net
> http://swansea.academia.edu/DaveSayers

———————————
I am conducting linguistic research in Kamchatka and have very low bandwidth. Please do not send messages larger than 1MB. Less is more.

http://www.koryaks.net/blog
http://elar.soas.ac.uk/deposit/koryak-140247
Tweet @Ememqut01

The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.