![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Part II
Again, unbeta'd. And a bit obscure.
In any discussion that involves people from different backgrounds and cultures, the words used are of great importance. They can define the parameters of the discussion, the persons involved, and the topics themselves. And in dealing with sovereignty of indigenous peoples in an international setting, it is important to note that the very terms "indigenous" and "people/peoples" carry great significance. The term "indigenous" can have power to include or exclude, to empower or disempower. The difference between "people" and "peoples" can have significant impact on the scope of a relationship. The differences in worldview inherent in the definition of "indigenous" and "peoples" are many and varied, and their elaboration is beyond the scope of this paper, but it will be touched on lightly before moving on.
a) As defined by International Law
In discussing the rights and circumstances of indigenous peoples, the identity of the peoples holding those rights is of paramount importance. And in discussing the self-determination of indigenous peoples, the ability to define who is part of one's group and who is not is of central importance. A group that is not permitted to decide who may be included within their group very obviously has less power - less sovereignty - than a group that has that right and ability.
Although in the past definitions of indigenous have included such things as unmixed biological descent from indigenous peoples, or habitation in a specific territory set aside for indigenous peoples, a representative example of current international usage can be seen in the Article 1 of the ILO Convention alluded to above:
1. (a) [Tribal] peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations;
(b) Peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present State boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.
2. Self-identification as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply.
This definition is sufficiently vague to include many different peoples under the term "indigenous", should they wish to be included. Unlike other definitions of indigenous that have been used in the past to limit the inclusion of people into the term indigenous, this definition does not require ethnic purity; it does not require that the regular use of a distinct language; it does not require occupation of particular territories. It does, however, show at least one difficulty: the term "independent countries" excludes indigenous peoples in non-independent countries.
[somehow tie this in, look up the source and "Partly because of the ambiguity caused by the salt water theory, most African and Asian countries deny the existence of indigenous peoples within their territories or have at best remained ambivalent about it.
The use of the term "peoples" is also fraught with complexity. The definition of what constitutes a people is difficult enough, although, for example, a review of United Nations documents shows that most definitions used include three factors: "first, the group is a social unit with a clear identity and characteristics of its own; second, the group has a relationship with a territory, even if the group has been wrongfully expelled from that territory; and third, the group has a claim to something more than simply status as an ethnic, linguistic or religious minority. However, the use of the term "peoples" in the plural is highly controversial. Indeed, the last part of Article 1 of the above ILO Convention cautions that "The use of the term "peoples" in this Convention shall not be construed as having any implications as regards the rights which may attach to the term under international law.[emphasis added]
For many decades, international documents used the singular "people" in conjunction with "indigenous" both consciously and unconsciously, to make it clear that the rights described were rights that should belong to individuals belonging to indigenous groups - such as the right to not be discriminated against, or the right to full citizenship in the country of residence. The use of the term "peoples" marks a departure from this attitude, as it speaks of the rights and considerations that must be given to indigenous individuals as a group and not just as individuals. This change in attitude has not been welcomed by many states, as it imposes higher standards on them in dealing with indigenous issues. Instead of only having to ensure that indigenous individuals are not harmed or discriminated against, use of the term "peoples" imposes a duty to safeguard the group rights of indigenous persons, and even to accept the fact that they may be entitled to different rights than the larger general population of the state.
The terms "peoples" is also felt to be too closely related to the term "nations", which implies some form of separation from nation-states. The usage may even be felt to be a prelude to treating groups of individuals within one's borders as separate entities, which is not a welcome idea to nation-states. For this reason, many nation-states either protest the use of the plural form or ensure that the use is clarified. One example can be found in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a policy document issued by the Fourth Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting, which notes that "[t]he United States notes that the use of the term "peoples" in this policy document shall not be construed as having any implications as regard the rights which may attach to the term under international law."
b) As defined by Indigenous People(s)
Finding common definitions of "indigenous" and "peoples" among indigenous individuals and groups is fairly challenging, as the definitions are almost as varied as the groups themselves. It would be impossible to fully explore this topic within this paper, but from a small sample of definitions we can see some similarities and differences in definitions. For example, the XXXX group states that:
Ethnic groups … form PEOPLE, and their members cannot normally join or leave them as they will. A member of a people is born into it, and only those individuals on the borders of the people may have the possibility of choosing their own ethnic identity, if the legislation allows them such a possibility. The members of a people have a mutual origin and mutual identity, often characterised by mutual area, mutual language and mutual culture, besides a mutual system of social control. Even if one of these characteristics should be lacking for an individual, the others will mark his or her ethnic membership. Every individual belongs to a people, and even though the world is organised in states, it is populated by peoples
An indigenous individual from South America, in explaining the meaning of "people" in his culture (the Mapuche), states that "The word "Mapuche" means "people of the earth". The Mapuches' culture, customs, religion, social organizations and folklore are based so closely on this belonging to the land that without the land, there could be no Mapuche people." Another individual from Oceania states that "What distinguishes … indigenous culture is the conscious articulation of this relationship with the natural world... Here is a small example taken from my own Maori background. When one finds the need to identify oneself … there are many ways to do this, including the use of a tribal pepeha (expression) which in mentioning a mountain, a river and an ancestor contiguously identifies the individual."
Taking aside only one aspect of these definitions, we see that while one group says that place "often" characterizes an indigenous group, a member of another group says that without place, their particular indigenous group does not exist, while another sees "place" as a way of describing individuals in his culture.
"'Brain'? What is 'brain'?"
Name that quote :)
In any discussion that involves people from different backgrounds and cultures, the words used are of great importance. They can define the parameters of the discussion, the persons involved, and the topics themselves. And in dealing with sovereignty of indigenous peoples in an international setting, it is important to note that the very terms "indigenous" and "people/peoples" carry great significance. The term "indigenous" can have power to include or exclude, to empower or disempower. The difference between "people" and "peoples" can have significant impact on the scope of a relationship. The differences in worldview inherent in the definition of "indigenous" and "peoples" are many and varied, and their elaboration is beyond the scope of this paper, but it will be touched on lightly before moving on.
a) As defined by International Law
In discussing the rights and circumstances of indigenous peoples, the identity of the peoples holding those rights is of paramount importance. And in discussing the self-determination of indigenous peoples, the ability to define who is part of one's group and who is not is of central importance. A group that is not permitted to decide who may be included within their group very obviously has less power - less sovereignty - than a group that has that right and ability.
Although in the past definitions of indigenous have included such things as unmixed biological descent from indigenous peoples, or habitation in a specific territory set aside for indigenous peoples, a representative example of current international usage can be seen in the Article 1 of the ILO Convention alluded to above:
1. (a) [Tribal] peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations;
(b) Peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present State boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.
2. Self-identification as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply.
This definition is sufficiently vague to include many different peoples under the term "indigenous", should they wish to be included. Unlike other definitions of indigenous that have been used in the past to limit the inclusion of people into the term indigenous, this definition does not require ethnic purity; it does not require that the regular use of a distinct language; it does not require occupation of particular territories. It does, however, show at least one difficulty: the term "independent countries" excludes indigenous peoples in non-independent countries.
[somehow tie this in, look up the source and "Partly because of the ambiguity caused by the salt water theory, most African and Asian countries deny the existence of indigenous peoples within their territories or have at best remained ambivalent about it.
The use of the term "peoples" is also fraught with complexity. The definition of what constitutes a people is difficult enough, although, for example, a review of United Nations documents shows that most definitions used include three factors: "first, the group is a social unit with a clear identity and characteristics of its own; second, the group has a relationship with a territory, even if the group has been wrongfully expelled from that territory; and third, the group has a claim to something more than simply status as an ethnic, linguistic or religious minority. However, the use of the term "peoples" in the plural is highly controversial. Indeed, the last part of Article 1 of the above ILO Convention cautions that "The use of the term "peoples" in this Convention shall not be construed as having any implications as regards the rights which may attach to the term under international law.[emphasis added]
For many decades, international documents used the singular "people" in conjunction with "indigenous" both consciously and unconsciously, to make it clear that the rights described were rights that should belong to individuals belonging to indigenous groups - such as the right to not be discriminated against, or the right to full citizenship in the country of residence. The use of the term "peoples" marks a departure from this attitude, as it speaks of the rights and considerations that must be given to indigenous individuals as a group and not just as individuals. This change in attitude has not been welcomed by many states, as it imposes higher standards on them in dealing with indigenous issues. Instead of only having to ensure that indigenous individuals are not harmed or discriminated against, use of the term "peoples" imposes a duty to safeguard the group rights of indigenous persons, and even to accept the fact that they may be entitled to different rights than the larger general population of the state.
The terms "peoples" is also felt to be too closely related to the term "nations", which implies some form of separation from nation-states. The usage may even be felt to be a prelude to treating groups of individuals within one's borders as separate entities, which is not a welcome idea to nation-states. For this reason, many nation-states either protest the use of the plural form or ensure that the use is clarified. One example can be found in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a policy document issued by the Fourth Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting, which notes that "[t]he United States notes that the use of the term "peoples" in this policy document shall not be construed as having any implications as regard the rights which may attach to the term under international law."
b) As defined by Indigenous People(s)
Finding common definitions of "indigenous" and "peoples" among indigenous individuals and groups is fairly challenging, as the definitions are almost as varied as the groups themselves. It would be impossible to fully explore this topic within this paper, but from a small sample of definitions we can see some similarities and differences in definitions. For example, the XXXX group states that:
Ethnic groups … form PEOPLE, and their members cannot normally join or leave them as they will. A member of a people is born into it, and only those individuals on the borders of the people may have the possibility of choosing their own ethnic identity, if the legislation allows them such a possibility. The members of a people have a mutual origin and mutual identity, often characterised by mutual area, mutual language and mutual culture, besides a mutual system of social control. Even if one of these characteristics should be lacking for an individual, the others will mark his or her ethnic membership. Every individual belongs to a people, and even though the world is organised in states, it is populated by peoples
An indigenous individual from South America, in explaining the meaning of "people" in his culture (the Mapuche), states that "The word "Mapuche" means "people of the earth". The Mapuches' culture, customs, religion, social organizations and folklore are based so closely on this belonging to the land that without the land, there could be no Mapuche people." Another individual from Oceania states that "What distinguishes … indigenous culture is the conscious articulation of this relationship with the natural world... Here is a small example taken from my own Maori background. When one finds the need to identify oneself … there are many ways to do this, including the use of a tribal pepeha (expression) which in mentioning a mountain, a river and an ancestor contiguously identifies the individual."
Taking aside only one aspect of these definitions, we see that while one group says that place "often" characterizes an indigenous group, a member of another group says that without place, their particular indigenous group does not exist, while another sees "place" as a way of describing individuals in his culture.
"'Brain'? What is 'brain'?"
Name that quote :)