Who is indigenous?

[Carl E. Anderson]

I find the “firestorm” over the term a bit curious – and the fact that such
a firestorm even exists should alert us to the fact that we are dealing with
a “political” issue rather than a “scientific” one. Technically, of course,
everyone is “indigenous” with respect to some location, in the dictionary
sense of “having originated in and being produced, growing, or living
naturally in a particular region or environment”. Technically, a baby born
to Asian immigrants in Amsterdam is as “indigenous” as a baby born to
parents whose ancestors have lived in Holland since “time immemorial”, or a
baby born to parents who are participants in the English-speaking
“mainstream” culture of New York City is as “indigenous” as a baby born on a
reservation to parents whose ancestors lived in the Americas before the
arrival of Europeans, etc. and etc. And given that – since “time immemorial”
(which itself is a pretty vague and even changeable concept) – some people
have always moved around or adopted new or multiple identities, it is
difficult to escape the sense that the term is not much use from a
technical/scientific viewpoint, and that might well be a better argument
than what Kuper offered for indeed abandoning it in
technical/scientific/academic contexts.

 

Even if we try to define indigenous peoples in the sense of “the first
inhabitants ever (known)”, and also peoples whose culture and identity
sharply differ from those of the (local [though how “local”?]) majority, and
also whose history includes colonization, dispossession, marginalization,
subjugation, etc. we are really wrapping so many ultimately distinct
conditions into the term that we are probably diluting whatever value it may
have (had) to the point of uselessness. 

 

Even people who are “indigenous” in the sense of “(descendants) of the first
inhabitants ever (known)" 
. Well, who those first inhabitants really were
may be debatable, or the information about them may change; and people who
are their descendants may also have other ancestors from other places, and
so forth and so on. The extent to which any of this matters in the
socio-cultural construct of “indigenousness” by different people is
inevitably going to be variable (we can readily find various “indigenous
groups” whose own criteria for what qualifies a group member varies
markedly), and thus we have the situation that all sorts of people with
widely varying conditions and agendas can claim “indigeneity” or
self-identify as “indigenous”. IMO, the concept as used in the contemporary
world is simply too vague, too diverse, to enable any useful universal
application.

 

Is it not finally the case that we are probably really talking about
political, social, and cultural issues of “endangered minority ethnic and/or
cultural and/or linguistic groups”? After all, it would be difficult to
identify the Romani as “indigenous” (except, in a technical sense, perhaps
ultimately to the region of the NW Indian subcontinent, where none I think
now live!) except to the location where a given individual was born (which
could have been in anyone of a number of countries or continents), yet in
political/social/cultural terms the Romani are surely affected by many of
the same issues that affect people belonging to what one might more
customarily consider to be “indigenous” groups (whether Sámi or Navajo or
Ainu or whoever).  

 

For good or for ill, I cannot see how the claim of “indigeneity” by living
persons can be construed as something other than political/social construct
– and, probably, as long as we remember that socio-political “indigeneity”
is (or can be) quite different from (if conceptually related to)
technical/scientific “indigeneity”, perhaps we will be OK. I’m not sure I
see any other readily solution or definition.

 

Cheers,
Carl

 

--

Carl Edlund Anderson

Dept. of Languages & Cultures

Universidad de La Sabana

http://unisabana.academia.edu/CarlAnderson

http://lenguas.unisabana.edu.co/

http://laclil.unisabana.edu.co/

 

From: Endangered Languages List
[mailto:ENDANGERED-LANGUAGES-L at listserv.linguistlist.org] On Behalf Of
Johanna Laakso
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 2:26 AM
To: ENDANGERED-LANGUAGES-L at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Who is indigenous?

 

Dear Frank & All,

 

in our case, one central issue was the position of the Sámi as "the only
indigenous people of the EU", in contrast to other old minorities of Europe.
As it seems, the "definitions" of indigenitude (as I wrote, the ILO
convention actually does not provide a definition in the strict sense of the
word) is largely motivated by the colonisation of non-European areas by
Europeans, and its consequences. Within Europe, the situation is more
complicated, as there often are many old ethnic and linguistic groups all
inhabiting the same regions "from times immemorial", and whether the
"timeline in a specific geographical location extends back further than any
other ethnic or linguistic group in that location" cannot always be
unanimously determined.

 

Best

Johanna

--

Univ.Prof. Dr. Johanna Laakso

Universität Wien, Institut für Europäische und Vergleichende Sprach- und
Literaturwissenschaft (EVSL)

Abteilung Finno-Ugristik

Campus AAKH Spitalgasse 2-4 Hof 7

A-1090 Wien

johanna.laakso at univie.ac.at • http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Johanna.Laakso/

Project ELDIA: http://www.eldia-project.org/ 

 





 

Frank DiSalle kirjoitti 19.1.2013 kello 14.03:





 

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Johanna Laakso
<johanna.laakso at univie.ac.at> wrote:

Indigenous peoples are "First Nations" in the sense of "the first
inhabitants ever (known)", and ALSO peoples whose culture and identity
sharply differ from those of the majority and whose history includes
colonisation, dispossession, marginalisation or subjugation. 

 

I'd be very interested in hearing (reading) the justification for including
the following in a definition of "indigenous":
Their culture and identity sharply differ from those of the majority AND 
Their history includes colonisation, dispossession, marginalisation or
subjugation. 

I think the simpler definition of indigenous would be the cultural (i.e.,
ethnic or linguistic) group whose timeline in a specific geographical
location extends back further than any other ethnic or linguistic group in
that location. 

Respectfully,

Frank DiSalle 

 



-- 

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape
finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.
 ~ Marcus Aurelius 
 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/endangered-languages-l/attachments/20130121/bb366af9/attachment.htm>