Becoming Indigenous

Although the term Indigenous easily evokes colorful images of brave warriors with plumes, as a political concept Indigeneity is not as easy to grapple with. The first ones to use a common category to denominate the first peoples of the American continent with a common term were European colonizers; in contrast, single groups generally did not perceive diverse local cultures to have much in common and rather used to denominate

themselves as people or human beings, in contrast to outsiders or ‘barbarians’ (Brysk 2000: 57). In fact – and in contrast to prevalent stereotypes - differences between those people now self-identifying as Indigenous are striking, both with regard to ethnological criteria, degree of political mobilization, level of economic development and modern political and economic orientations (Levi & Maybury-Lewis 2012). Indigenous peoples live on all continents; the term brings together peoples as diverse as the Sami in Northern Europe, Maori from New Zealand, Kuna from Panama, Pygmies from Central Africa, and the so-called scheduled tribes from India. In this context, Indigeneity as a concept uniting all these different peoples is a comparatively recent invention. In other words, “indigenous identity reveals itself to be a quintessentially modern phenomenon”

(Niezen 2003: xii).

Depending on the criteria of definition, it is estimated that today roughly about 375 to 400 million Indigenous individuals are living throughout the world (Coates 2006: 275).

Groups from the Americas were the first ones to organize under the common banner of Indigeneity at the UN; they were soon joined by groups from New Zealand, Australia, as well as Saami from Europe. Asian groups joined the movement in the mid-1980s, while African groups took until the 1990s to enter the stage of the UN. Peoples from the Russian Federation were the last to join the movement (Muehlebach 2001: 420). This growth of the Indigenous movement was a sign of the attractiveness of the concept, which resonated with donor support and increased the legitimacy of claims made by individual groups (Hodgson 2002a: 1088). It also to some degree reflected the growing importance that the United Nations gave to the concept. Thus, the UN itself has been instrumental in the development of a pan-Indigenous identity (Niezen 2003: 9). In short, over the last decades marginalized and disenfranchised groups from all corners of the world increasingly began to claim Indigenous identity and became Indigenous in a process of collective empowerment (Levi & Maybury-Lewis 2012: 75); under the Indigenous label, their leaders assemble in international meetings to share experiences and pursue collective strategies. The term thus constitutes the basis for mobilization of local activities and transnational networks, but also for the drafting of standards, and for special politics of national and international institutions.

The globalization of the Indigenous movement, however, also impacted on the concept of Indigeneity, evidencing the malleability of the concept. Thus, ‘traditional’ Indigenous peoples from the Americas, New Zealand and Australia derive their Indigeneity from

being the first inhabitants of the territories they live in, and regularly frame their struggle in the context of unfinished decolonization. In turn, in Africa and Asia, Indigeneity is claimed by ethnic minorities who have experienced marginalization by the state, and claims reside to a much lesser degree on priority in time (Hodgson 2002b:

1042). Jeffrey Sissons (2005: 16–18) even argues that two distinct movements have been united under the concept of Indigeneity: With the advent of African and Asian groups to the UN, the focus of Indigeneity has shifted towards primitiveness and closeness to nature. However, it has also been pointed to that there are strong elements which unite the Indigenous movement across all continents. Thus, identifying as Indigenous is a positioning based on a common experience of subjugation and assimilation by the states in which they live, bound by the common goal of achieving self-determination as peoples (Niezen 2003: 91–93). Indigenous delegates at the UN themselves often highlight the many parallels and common experiences that they discover between groups from all parts of the world. Still, it has to be kept in mind that Indigenous identity only in rare cases has spread to the grassroots level. In contrast,

“Indigenous identity is invoked by a minority of educated leaders in any given society, by an intelligentsia” (ibid.: 11).

Regardless the decades of international activities concerning Indigenous peoples, until today no formal definition of the term Indigenous exists. In this context, it is especially the fact that international law does more and more concede Indigenous peoples legal claims to traditional territories and specific rights which makes the question whether a group is considered as Indigenous or not politically and judicially relevant (Kingsbury 1999: 336–337). This is why many states that have IPs living on their territory argue that any further development of international norms regarding Indigenous peoples should be tied to a concrete definition of the beneficiaries (Corntassel 2003: 76). Many Indigenous peoples, however, defend that a formal definition of the term is not necessary. They consider the demand for a definition to be an expression of bureaucratic (as opposed to Indigenous) ways of thinking. Indigenous identity as other elements of identity is subject to change (ibid.). Others opine that because of the plurality and great variety of the world’s Indigenous peoples it is impossible to come to an adequate definition: „[T]he concept of ‚indigenous’ is not capable of a precise, inclusive definition which can be applied in the same manner to all regions of the world“ (Daes 1996: 5).

The most commonly cited definition goes back to the ‚Study on the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations’ by Martínez Cobo, prepared on behalf of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities:

“Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems. […] On an individual basis, an indigenous person is one who belongs to these indigenous populations through self-identification as

indigenous (group consciousness) and is recognized and accepted by these populations as one of its members (acceptance by the group). This preserves for these communities the sovereign right and power to decide who belongs to them, without external interference” (Martínez Cobo 1987:

379–382).

ECOSOC has proclaimed its approval of this definition, and has advocated its publication and broad dissemination. Sometimes it is even referred to as ‚the UN-Definition’.

Formally, however, this is not correct; the Cobo definition might however be called an

“accepted understanding” (Davis 2008: 443).

Many authors advocate for a flexible definition with a list of possible criteria to be checked in each single case, thus accounting for the variety of specific cases. In practice, most definitions of Indigeneity recur to the following four main elements: priority in time, cultural distinctiveness, self-identification, and non-dominance (Levi & Maybury-Lewis 2012: 87). Any criterion should not be treated as a strict requirement for a classification as Indigenous, but rather as a guideline (Daes 1996; Kingsbury 1999).

Thus, Indigeneity has been considered as a “polithetic class”: while there is a set of criteria typical of Indigenous peoples, no single criterion is shared by all groups, nor does any single group possess all features (Levi & Maybury-Lewis 2012: 89). In practice, participation in UN institutions dealing with Indigenous issues relies on self-identification as Indigenous, whereas Indigenous organizations collectively are given the responsibility to draw attention to improper assertions of the right to participate (Daes 1996). Similarly, when this study makes reference to Indigenous peoples, it refers to those groups which self-identify as such.