Local knowledge certainly has value. I studied the ethnoveterinary knowledge of Tzotzil indians in Chiapas (Mexico) and the sheep husbandry system, healthcare practices and ethnoveterinary knowledge of Raika pastoralists in Rajasthan (India). Their knowledge on medicinal plants is amazing. Many of the plants that were used are used in other parts of the world for the same diseases and health problems. Skin problems, bone fractures and some internal parasites are efficiently treated based on local (ethnoveterinary) knowledge. However, we shouldn't romanticize local knowledge, in case of ethnoveterinary there are harmful practices as well. But given the lack of conventional animal healthcare services, communication problems between western trained vets and local livestock keepers and the remote areas in which these people live and move around it is often the only choice they have. I personally believe in combining the strength of both local knowledge and 'conventional' knowledge.

Thank you Ellen! I totally agree with you that all we need to do to [as researchers and academics] is seek the appropriate meeting points of the two bodies of knowledge - Western and indigenous - relevant to human development. Doing so will ensure knowledge synergy for advancing sustainable development. Where and when properly combined, they both could achieve what individually they would not have achieved (I borrow Robert Chambers' idea here) in the first place.

I reject the argument that indigenous knowledge is anti-development. Some of it can be used to improve livelihoods and achieving sustainability requires this knowledge to be take reference point. However I mostly agree that indigenous livelihood systems are anti-development. Development by definition requires substantial change from one system to another and most of the indigenous livelihood systems reproduces themselves continuously. For instance, during my research in Kalahari Desert both in Botswana and Namibia, i have observed that interventions to introduce cattle breeding to san people were failure due to the strong cultural resistance. Specifically I have realized that first most san people I have interviewed are not that interested in the development as defined by systems capable of more and better quality food, better shelter, better clothes etc, when it implies them to spend most of their time around the animals and fixing them to a locations near the animals. Secondly, some of them were reluctant to send their children to schools despite the fact that it will contribute to their livelihood in the long term cause they assume that children don't need the skills though in the schools are relevant in their life style. However, indigenous knowledge can also be instrumental in development. I made a survey on utilization of Morama beans, tylosema esculentum, and indigenous knowledge on for instance location and agronomics were quite instrumental in improving research efficiency. In conclusion, indigenous knowledge needs to be categorized and classified and relevant ones need to be incorporated into development interventions. However, no development can be achieved based on indigenous knowledge system as a whole.

Oluwatoyin, you first have to deal with terms 'progress' and 'backward'. Why would anyone describe what works for me as backward and what is severely problematic as progress? I will give you a living example.

In Uganda today, there is emerging famine in the semi-arid northeastern corner of the country which is occupied by Karamojong pastoralists. Because of the insecurity in the neighboring Kenya, South Sudan and the not far-off Ethiopia border, the Karamojong people, like other neighboring pastoalists, have acquired guns to defend their cattle. Pastoralism has been the form of livelihood since eternity in this region.

Uganda's colonial and post-colonial governments long ago decided that pastoralism did not belong to the modern times. Pastoralism is not progressive, it is backward. They have endeavored to force the Karamojong to settle and grow food - do agriculture in the semi-arid region. Four-five years ago, the current regime in Kampala embarked on a violent disarmament program of the pastoralists. Meanwhile the Ministry for Karamoja embarked on a program to promote crop production in the region. The catch phrases were 'Karamoja must change'. 'If fruits can grow in the desert in Israel why not in semi-arid Karamoja.' In other words science and technology have an answer for the region! Unfortunately this answer is not what the people are used to and therefore the people must be forced to change.

In good time the Karamojong cattle were stolen by government armed forces and people from across the border who were not disarmed, and the rains came and washed away instead of watering the crops. Now people are dying in incremental numbers. The advocates of progress in governments and universities in Kampala, New York and London do not consider the current level of famine as alarming yet to deserve food aid. A lot more people must die.

Policy, always informed by science i.e modern knowledge, does not consider the pastoralist transhumance approach to the semi-arid landscape as knowledge. Policy-relevant knowledge claims superiority over any other forms, indeed claims the right to un-recognize all other forms as knowledge. But the victims of modern policy, victims of modern research are real human beings. The history of development in Africa is littered with so many such victims.

Why is it difficult to look at the indigenous people's centuries-old adaptation to their habitat as a form of progressive knowledge? It is important to find out why policy favors 'scientific', 'research-based evidence' against the existing knowledge in a given locality.

Yes, Murat! '...indigenous knowledge needs to be categorized and classified and relevant ones need to be incorporated into development interventions...' This should be the starting point, really. But I feel that your comment '...that indigenous livelihood systems are anti-development' may be sweeping; too generalising. There are many livelihood strategies, which are environmental and human friendly. Some approaches to sustainable agricultural intensification is an example. They may not be economically rewarding on a large scale. But this does not mean they are anti-development.

I am no expert on this field but I would suggest to be more specific. There is no such think as THE traditional knowledge. We can find many knowledges systems/elements and some can be 'useful' and some can probably be labeled as 'anti-development'. It completely depends on the situation.

There is nothing like retrograde or anti development. Indigenous knowledge must be projected in such a way that it becomes compatible with external factors , hypotheses and theories that are based on scientific research and findings, so that people can correlate and connect the available indigenous knowledge . Any knowledge cannot exist in isolation.

The key to answer is the definition of development - and here lies the actual problem. As illustrated in the above cases from the developing countries across the continents, economic growth is considered the only parameter of development. This results in negation of traditional knowledge and a blind aping of quick fixing with so called modern knowledge as it would result in conspicuous economic growth. The concerted efforts to increase this kind of development in each and every part of the world has resulted a faceoff between traditional knowledge and so called modern knowledge.

In providing an answer to your query I may state in reference to indigenous Knowledge (IK) that the plateaus are in vogue, being experienced in agricultural productivity, extent of disease and pest control and understanding underlying mechanisms in biological sciences. The fact is to be reckoned with that with all genuine concern for environment and quality food, the extent of use and support to IK and biological control is way behind the chemical technology. The reasons are many, e.g., lack of proper standardization, product formulation, industrial production and value addition in IK technologies. A new approach to research-extension linkage is needed to address these issues and fill the gaps for a sustainable and environment friendly agriculture.

In the context of understanding underlying mechanisms, plant physiological and biochemical studies have hitherto contributed, leading to an interface of plant pathology with molecular biology and biotechnology. Yet, it is being realized that in order to understand better some of the initial questions like- why compost is better? Why do we need an organic matrix for fertilizer application? How biodynamic preparations work? Why bio control is more eco-friendly than chemical control? How things like ash, ghee (butter oil) and butter act to control or inducing resistance? How yajnas like Agnihotra can be useful in enhancing agricultural productivity and as homa therapy? Could there be any significant difference in the milk, urine and dung of indigenous cow and exotic cattle or buffalo?-a trans-, disciplinary research including nanotechnology, quantum physics, intra-molecular electronics of DNA etc. are needed to break the barrier and surge upward beyond the saturating lines. Moreover, plant adaptations to biotic and abiotic stresses need to be reassessed in the light of new insights being generated as plant neurobiology, plant intelligence, consciousness.

Experts used to say that the main reason why grass root innovations were being ignored because peer pressure often forced scientists to focus on high-impact research with wide visibility. The situation is changing with a horizontal emphasis on ecological and quality concerns. Recent patenting of a milk-based product active against a number of fungal diseases in general and mildews in particular from Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand Limited is, in fact a matter of recognition to the Indigenous Knowledge and farmers’ wisdom.

Now it is strongly advocated to strengthen such systems through village based initiatives and actively involving local peasants are considered the keys to successful sustainable agriculture and rural development programmes. In fact, we are learning how to best utilize these traditionally applied natural tools for meeting the challenges of agriculture. It requires alternative technologies in order to feed burgeoning population while reducing the input of chemical pesticides in our food chain and the environment.

Hi everyone!

Reading all the answers I realize that nobody has taken into account that every social group needs TIME to evolve and incorporate new knowledge to their culture... Indigenous knowledge is by no means 'anti-development'! Developed countries are imposing their knowledge and development concepts over social groups who need TIME to incorporate new techniques and technology to their own way of life.

It is interesting how International and local agencies try to speed up a process for the sake of development...

I have been working with indigenous communities in the insertion of tourism in their territories, and it is interesting to see nobody cares about the huge 'quantic' leap these people have to do to shift from a rural livelihood, to a service job... And academia concludes these projects fail because lack of links to the market, or lack of management skills...

The truth is, development theories are developed on developed countries' office desks and are designed by people far away from the 'underdeveloped', 'backward', 'ignorant' communities who need to be incorporated to 'the market'.

Many of these communities have complex social and economic systems that are independent from the market mainstream. They have common labor to solve their problems, because public services do not reach them, they practice barter, they apply their own rules, they do not understand concepts like economic benefit, capital accumulation or investment, because they live subsistence economies...

Local knowledge is, on the other hand, the intangible cultural heritage of humanity! We cannot destroy it for the sake of Western 'development!

I agree we have to seek appropriate meeting points, and try to improve livelihoods, but we have to respect the points of view and the needs Indigenous communities have. Democracy should be exercised, and the process of every social group should be respected. I know we think they would be better off if they had more money to spend on food, but that is not what they really need... They need TIME to go through a process where their culture incorporates new knowledge...

Yes... Everybody speaks for themselves, forgetting the communities' needs and will... Development does not just 'happen' nor can it be forced or imposed... The cultural integration of new ways of doing things has to go through collective inderstanding... And that takes time and hard work!

Say I , even when an African community becomes "developed" that is they move north, live north, more often culture prevails as the basics functions of life from birth, courtship and marriage, birthing processes and even in death! I find it totally fascinating watching these evolutionary processes as they "swallow development as we know of it", leaving cultural norms of practice intact!

Local knowledge systems are powerful, particularly for people who do not have enough access to modern ways of doing things. Traditional health practices for example have kept many local communities going for centuries and although some refinements are necessary indigenous knowledge in the area of health is still awesome. This is much that modern medical practice can learn from traditional health systems. Let's encourage the appropriate linkages,

There is also a body of indigenous knowledge in the area of ethnobiology that is yet ot be explore fully. Let's focus some more attention on it and see how modernity can benefit.

Indigenous knowledge cannot be regarded as anti-development. We are tempted to feel or think so because we often seek to interrupt the gradual developmental process of indigenous people. Left alone, indigenous knowledge could enhance development after all development is about people so we cannot say that the development we are bringing to them should not fit into their indigenous knowledge and world view. We can make use of indigenous knowledge to enhance acceptance of whatever development agenda we have for the people. Rather than rushing to think that the indigenous people are retrogrades, we should rather take time to understand them as a people and their needs so as develop and implement appropriate development plan we have for them into.

Yes, development is about livelihood, making a living, meeting needs, coping with uncertainties and responding to opportunities (Salafsky and Wollengberg, 2000). it also relates to security a well as the ability to offset risks, ease shocks and to meet contingencies. What is better placed to mediate sustainable development than indigenous knowledge that has been acquired through adaptation to a dynamic social economic, cultural and ecological enviroment that humanity has had to grapply with over centuries. Certainly, the world has moved on through globalisation by modernity has much to learn from indigenous knowledge systems.

Most indigenous knowledge is handed down through religio-spiritual and oral edification and most indigenous knowledge holders are departing to eternity without passing it on to "modern generation" probably for fear of abuse. Let the research community act fast before we lose this valuable capital.

There are a number of good responses here but I don't see anyone addressing the fundamental issue that the terms anti-development and retrogressive are highly subjective and judgmental. The question to me is who is making these judgements and to what end? "Certain quarters" may have this opinion, but that IS the bottom line - it's an opinion. The merit or weight of it should be measured against the education, ethnic & cultural sensitivity, and ultimately, the ulterior motives of "certain quarters". Why do we immediately feel the need to race around justifying something that, on it's face, is clearly worth engaging in - the recognition and engagement of knowledge that did not have it's origin in our own culture?

In MY opinion, ALL engagement of knowledge from ANY intelligent source, is and will continue to be a worthy endeavor. There is much we could learn from whales and dolphins if we put the time into understanding their cultures and language at a more significant level than is presently understood. To diminish or trivialize the knowledge of any human culture is, on the face of it, a poor reflection on those doing the trivializing AND usually reflects a hidden agenda or ulterior motives.

We live in a world that is under severe stress. Other "certain quarters" would even say that it is under attack... and we (the modern world) are the attackers! ANY indigenous culture, past or present has a HIGH probability of living in some context of "success" or balance with their environment. ANY study that we can make of that has the potential to reveal methods of living in balance with nature that are potentially applicable now over a much broader span of the human diaspora, whether they were/are successful or not. Further, as Andrew Agyare points out above, there are potential benefits that have impact on how we conduct our medical processes and how we understand the overall biology of humanity.

Development, per se, is not the "evil" that is implied in the dismissive attitude presented by "certain quarters" The fundamental evil is excessive consumption and the attendant creation of massive amounts of "waste". As long as humanity exists there will be development. ALL indigenous cultures have "development" that is more or less dependent upon their cultural and biological "success". The important factor is to be able to understand their culture and domain well enough to be able to compare and contrast their "development" with ours and make a reasoned evaluation of WHAT we can learn from their experience, not whether we can learn from it.

In answer to the final question posed above - we simply DO it. We do the research. If one group won't support it as wasted time, another group WILL support it in the context presented in my comments. We then make the added effort to make sure that the research is done with cross-cultural and multi-disciplinary teams, to ensure the maximum potential value is derived. Finally, we go the extra mile and make sure that the published papers, and any other results, don't just go in to the journal of that discipline (preaching to the choir) but are widely distributed to those of other disciplines who WILL think about and use the knowledge so gained. I would specifically suggest professional firms and organizations that have the most likelihood of being able and willing to actually apply the lessons - architectural firms, engineering firms, water management firms, bio-remediation firms, entrepreneurial/ independent agricultural improvement enterprises (not Monsanto & the like!!), aid agencies, and the list goes on. NASA has a technology transfer program that works well to shift research and discovery rapidly into the operational world where it will be applied. Perhaps what is needed here is an "Indigenous Technology Transfer" program, or an Indigenous Center of Excellence that would give the subject more credibility AND ensure it's wide dissemination. :-)

Now you have another countervailing opinion from "this quarter"!

The discussion so far is useful. But we should not forget that "development" often delegitimizes indigenous knowledge. For instance, in my own work on herbal therapies for malarial fevers in Sri Lanka it was quite clear that with the coming of western malariology herbal therapies were gradually abandoned even by the practitioners of "indigenous medicine". Recent complications about western malaria therapies such as parasite resistance to antimalarials and vector resistance to insecticides, however, have once again created some interest in indigenous therapies for malaria.

Tudor, that only occurs in a very narrow interpretation of development, primarily associated with "developed" countries. That isn't either legitimate or functional when it comes to truly understanding this issue. It plays to the mistaken belief that "development" is something "we" do which is "good", and indigenous knowledge is something "they" do which "isn't good". In other words, it perpetuates an unfortunate and inaccurate stereotype.

It's time to delegitimize that use of the word "development", which was part of the intent of my previous post. Development is NOT a unique and dysfunctional attribute of western/developed civilization, it is a common and functional element of all human civilization. Over enthusiastic embrace of western style development has created more problems than it has solved, but that said, all cultures have and will continue to need development.

If modern knowledge can be grafted on indigenous knowledge then indigenous knowledge is progressive. Knowledge by definition begins with awareness of knowing what one does not know. If indigenous knowledge is "knowledge" then by definition it cannot be retrogressive. Even forms of knowledge like magic and sorcery are used to change the world. As these forms of knowledge are based on the premise of change, they should be open to change themselves as well. Indigenous and modern ignorance are both retrogressive not knowledge.

John Strohi, we cannot delegitimize the concept of development as currently used because every human has come to prefer wealth to poverty, food to hunger, health to disease. My idea of development is when a country or community can provide these basic needs for its people. In trying to achieve this, it has been realized that some cultures are more helpful than others; some cultures are more progress-prone than others. I see nothing wrong with scholars recognizing the basic difference between cultures that respond better than others to development as defined. Many western scholars probably out of post-colonial guilt continue to sing the praise of some quaint cultures of Africa and elsewhere even though the inhabitants of these cultural diversity enclaves themselves will do all to have access to the crumbs from the post-modern cultures of the west. when post-modernism tries to promote local cultures and knowledge systems, it is mostly because they are speaking from the position of over=fed and spoiled children of over-developed societies who have become so idle that they no longer know what to do other than engage in gratuitous intellectual mischief

Regarding development- most Indigenous peoples live in a Sovereign nation that is defined as a undeveloped country. If you look at stereotyping an Indigenous person or tribe there is a rebellious of having a view of a traditional dress or way of doing something that is not of the times and the view is related to 'NOT' to view Indigenous people that way. This relates to how an Indigenous person sees themselves. No, Indigenous people are not anti- development we are with the times-Contemporary!!!

Knowledge systems are complex. They tend to merge. Today, indigenous systems of knowledge are mixing with more technological systems brought to local areas by outside economic forces. In general, the combination of both indigenous and technological systems make a local economy more productive. Oluwatoyin, when you write about serving a "useful purpose," you are covering a broad field of purposes. There are many useful purposes, such as psychological well being, economic success, a longer life, etc. There will always be some purpose for which a traditional indigenous knowledge will be useful. I detect a certain generational conflict in your question. The younger generation often rebels and wants to downgrade the knowledge of the older generation, especially in an intellectual climate created by rapidly advancing technology. It seems to me that this attitude can lead to negative consequences because of its narrow sightedness. I would say fit the knowledge to the problem to be solved, and don't discard knowledge simply because it is old.

I totally agree with Margarita. The problem is, there is a hurry of agencies to incorporate indigenous peoples into the 'Western' concept of 'development', which implies integration to the mainstream market and the acquisition of consuming habits that are far from the concept of 'well-being' of these social groups.

These communities and their cultures are by no means, as Margarita says, museum pieces; they are evolving and changing constantly. The question is, again, what is the hurry? Every change has to have a process, and the process of change for these cultures should be a smooth one, according to their needs and interests, and not a violent one, guided by what so called experts decide from a desk.

Indigenous knowledge is part of the cultural heritage, first of these cultures, but then of humanity, so it would be good to think of it and other cultural traits, as something valuable, and NOT as an obstacle...

Gerda the problem here is that the inhabitants of these indigenous knowledge enclaves are themselves deeply dissatisfied with their inability to make progress, feed themselves and have the good life others are having. That's why their youths will do everything possible to migrate. The west's left often thinks that they are doing a lot of good to the others when they defend their right to remain indigenous and turn their back on progress. But I can assure you that the most obdurate indigene still prefers the good life made possible by modernity to the so-called ancestral roots. His problem is not refusal of development but his sheer difficulty of achieving it without a good measure of cultural change, or worldview switch. I believe what is most needful is not to tell these unfortunates that their often maladaptive native cultures are the best things they have but that progress is possible if only they are ready to make the necessary mind-set change and worldview adjustments. They should hurry to change because currently hunger, disease, ignorance and suffering are suffocating them and driving their youths to desperation moves such as crossing the Sahara on foot or even swimming across the Atlantic just to be able to escape the dungeon of their native cultures

First, a definition of development is necessary. Within the context at hand, allow me to define it as a progression toward a sustainable state of adequate social freedoms, political freedoms and basic needs for ALL members of a country /state.

Secondly, it is imperative to recognise that modernism and development are not synonymous. Nor is the former a prerequisite of the latter. In other words, for development to be achieved to all persons in a country, the marginalised, the poor and the indigenous must have social and political freedom and basic needs as according to what THEY consider freedom and basic needs. What modernists consider basic needs are not what indigenous communities consider basic needs. Though the indigenous ways of life and knowing are DIFFERENT from the more popular Western ways of knowing the world, indigenous ways are not wrong nor inferior. In order, for development to be achieved, indigenous communities must be supported in trying to achieve progress THEIR WAY.

Note here, that the subjugation of IK was deliberately applied by colonialists as a mode of power and control. Therefore, of course from their point of view, IK was primitive and inferior. Consequently, the rhetoric amongst modernists and Marxists up until circa the 1960s was that IK is inferior, backward and primitive. After the failure of western development efforts in rural and indigenous communities, current development theorists have now acknowledged that IK is not 'primitive' but instead imperative to national development.

How can this be done? One, not by storing IK in museums and databases in an attempt to 'save this dying resource' but instead by allowing indigenous communities more freedom to use it. Knowledge is only useful when it is used. Therefore, indigenous communities should be supported to use it.

Knowledge is power, knowledge is freedom. You cannot give an indigenous community power and freedom by denying it use of the knowledge it recognises.

Finally, allow me to speak from my heart and as an African. I cannot help but note that the popularity of modernism has clouded many formerly colonised, indigenous and rural communities to think that their way of living is backward, insignificant or primitive. If only we could recognise the rich resources we ( the so-called third world countries), have in knowledge, culture, innovation, relationships, traditional government and community. Then, we would achieve great development.

Thanks Kagonya. This is great

There has been a significant amount of work done on this question, and traditional/indigenous knowledge more generally, here in Canada, and specifically at Cape Breton University as a collaboration between the University and elders in the Eskasoni Band (going back several years). Leaving aside the cultural/normative weighting of "development", progress and growth, I very heartily recommend the work of Dr. Cheryl Bartlett, Elder Albert Marshall and others (http://www.integrativescience.ca/Principles/TwoEyedSeeing/), and the work of the National Collaborating Centre of Aboriginal Health, which has a wealth of material on traditional knowledge, evidence and indigenous knowledge (www.nccah.ca)

Thanks for the links Lars!

I would be remiss if I didn't note the work of Willie Ermine as well - his Master's thesis was very much related to this: https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/17129/1/ILJ-6.1-Ermine.pdf

Pienso que es complementario y algunas veces muy efectivo

I would honored three years ago to serve as the founding director of a new graduate program, the Master of Development Practice (MDP) in Indigenous Development, at UWinnipeg - the only such program in the world. As an Indigenous anthropologist doing research for many years in the area of American Indian casinos, I am interested not only in what development means in the indigenous context - as other commentators have noted, this is a heavily weighted topic - but also in the relationship between Indigenous development and Indigenous self-determination and even sovereignty. I think that Kagonya's points about power are well-taken, with the power dynamic playing out on many levels. While the MDP as an applied graduate degree was developed at Columbia U's Earth Institute, under the leadership of Jeffry Sacks, the UWinnipeg version, with its focus on Indigenous Development, was imagined and heavily influenced by Indigenous Elders, scholars, practitioners, chiefs, and allies. We understand Indigenous development to be contextual and holistic. It can mean community development in the areas of cultural retention/revitalization or it can mean communities developing innovative and sustainable economic projects, such as a local Cree Nation setting up a business to use so-called rough fish. Extractive industries, such as mining, oil and tar sands, and forestry, are a highly contentious economic development strategy in Canada and have a significant (that is an understatement) effect on Canadian Indigenous peoples. Ronald Niezen, in The Origins of Indigenism, cautions us against polarized thinking and static representations by providing a telling example of the James Bay Cree's reliance on extractive industries. Of course, this reliance comes after the community's traditional subsistence strategies are impossible due to a massive hydro development. Good discussion - I look forward to more thoughtful comments and insights.

Dear Sir,

No; Not at all. Instead, indigenous knowledge is progressive and acts as a catalyst for faster and equitable development. Only thing, everything depends on how one takes advantage of the rich quantum of indigenous knowledge that is available. Suitable mechanism for systematic storage, retrieval and use of such knowledge, and more importantly, protecting the same from the use / encroachment by others by way of patents, copyrights etc. is very essential.

In order to promote rural development with the help of local knowledge, initiatives targeted at systematic preservation and usage of such knowledge, preferably with the support of the Government authorities concerned, needs to be designed and developed meticulously. Here also, precautions are required to avoid branding such initiatives as "backward', or "outdated'. For this, the positive side of such knowledge should be deliberately highlighted against the so called "modern" counterparts, pinpointing the benefits (advantages) one by one. As the market gets convinced regarding the positive side, then word of mouth would alone suffice for the marketing of such knowledge or allied technologies or processes.

With regards,

Dr. MANOJ P K

DAE, CUSAT, KERALA.

Viewing indigenous knowledge and the indigenous peoples as such as backward and an obstacle to development is a rather old form of racism -at least in Latin America. And the answers to this point of view also have tradition, such as development with identity or the Good Life. It is interesting that those answers were born mostly in a social movement context - and not within academia, where the critique of development is quite rooted, but almost never lead to alternative proposals.

Dear Morgane Avery: while I concur with your ideas in general, I have to raise some doubt on the usage of Good Life by the government in Ecuador. In fact, the notion the State uses has virtually nothing to do with the definition developed by the indigenous movement and certain indigenous thinkers - the Good Life of the State is an alternative of development and not one to development, as the Good Life of the indigenous movement.

Indonesia has a lot of indigenous people and their indigenous knowledge to their sustainable development. When we talk about development, we should clearly defined about the development itself. What i mean, we should try to understand about the development from a point of view of each indigenous people. We can not compare apple to apple each perspective of development one another. They have their own development value as well as our wish and need to our development perspectives.

So, my point of view of this question is convincing me that indigenous knowledge not anti-development, because they have their own sustainable development values that should be considered in our perspective of development.

Sub Saharan Africa has millions of people not in formal employment but earn their living using the A Indigenous Knowledge Systems (AIKS). Move from one corner to another corner of many of the countries in this region and observe what people who are not in formal employment do to earn a living and try to find out how much of that is taught in the formal skills in those countries. There is little, if any. This is how we can put AIKS on a scale. It’s high time we considered other forms of knowledge as important and avoid this Eurocentric approach where alternative knowledge to western knowledge is ignorance.

A SECTION IN MY BOOK: ''EDUCATION FOR ALL AND AFRICAN INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS''

Why the topic?

“Can anything good come from Nazareth?” This is a quotation from the Bible book of John 1:46 (Watchtower, 1984).

When Phillip, one of the disciples of Jesus Christ told Nathaniel that they had found the one whom Moses in the law and the prophets wrote about, Jesus, the son of Joseph from Nazareth, Nathaniel’s quick answer is in the words above. As in the days of Jesus, there are so many Nathaniel- like people in our days asking if there is anything good that can be got from African Indigenous Knowledge Systems (AIKS). Many scholars, especially from the West seem to share this view about Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) in general as explained by many authors (Warren et al., 1995; Semali, 1999; Bicker et al., 2004). Why my choice then?

My own personal history and experiences of living in a rural community may have influenced the choice of my research topic. In a rural community, acquisition of practical skills like hunting, trapping birds and other small wild animals for food, constructing huts and granaries for maize storage and many others are much valued. A child who does not develop any of these skills is a laughing stock in the village and would be assigned a person to train him or her. Most learning we went through was task-based (Ngulube, 1989; Semali, 1999). I knew the art of trapping birds at the age of seven and this won me praise and gifts from my parents and other members of our community. Names of trees, plants, animals and insects, as well as the dangers and uses of each, were learnt when herding cattle or at maize fields with our parents. Some trees or roots would be identified by smell rather than sight. This is what Classen (1999) has reported happens elsewhere (see chapter four). The elders and sometimes even peers told us that certain types of birds and animals were not to be hunted. They would reveal to us that if hunters found two bucks fighting, they would kill only one and let the other one go. If the two animals were killed and news reached the village head or the chief, such a hunter would be made to pay a cow as punishment. Similarly, not all trees were to be cut. It was an offence to cut a tree that bears fruits or is used for medicine, while other trees like msoro would be preserved for divine purposes. This means that traditional checks and balances were instituted through a practice of rules and in some cases, a declaration of taboos (See Tables 3 and 4). Much of this information is not documented anywhere and could soon die with the passing of the older generation.

The notion here is that the Chewa people were able to control their hunting activities to allow nature to repair itself and avoid a depletion of animal species. This must have served to an extent as animal and environmental conservation. Tribal legends and proverbs (Mwale, 1973) were told and retold by the evening fireside as also alluded to by other scholars (Omolewa, 2001; Semali, 1999). Through them much of the cultural heritage of our tribe was kept alive. The word ‘orphan’ was never in our vocabulary as there was no one to merit that word. The family was my first world. All the older men in our community were my ‘fathers’, the women my ‘mothers’ and the girls and boys of my age my ‘sisters’ and ‘brothers’. The family tree was wide but safe and accommodating. Little did I know that one day all the numerous ‘fathers’ and ‘mothers’ would wear euphemistic terms ‘uncles’ and ‘aunts’ respectively, that my family tree would dwindle to what is known as biological parents, sisters and brothers. Those without the so-called biological parents would further be qualified as either single or double orphans (See chapter six). It was this humble experience that led to the development of my epistemological position and a respect for the Chewa AIKS. My argument is that the Chewa AIKS embraced the notion of providing education for all. Elders were not just teachers, but also mobile libraries and encyclopedias, to be referred to by all (Frank, 1960; Ocitti, 1973; Clarke, 1978; 1979). This notion is supported by Ki-Zerbo (1990: 27) who says that “when an elder dies in Africa, it is a library that burns.”

My education in the village began the day I was born and given a name, the name of my grand father who was a hunter. The term ‘hunting’ in the western context, has changed to ‘poaching’ when it comes to people doing it for survival and ‘safari hunting’ when it is others doing it for sport. In the Chewa AIKS, name giving has two significant reasons. The first reason is for identification and the other is a teaching point or a teaching aid. My grandfather used to hunt wild beasts in swampy areas. The wild beast is known as Nkhonzi in my mother tongue and a swampy area is known as Dambo. So he was known by the name of the animals he used to kill and the place he would go hunting. He was called Nkhonzi Kudambo, which literally means ‘Wild beast at the swampy area.’ All my father would do if I behaved not to his expectation was to point out the importance of the man whose name I was carrying. I would then be reminded that the name should never be put to shame. Note that a name would be withdrawn from you if you did not live by it. I was forced to change to a ‘civilised’ or ‘new’ name when I went to primary school to start my formal education as my given name was considered primitive. As a teacher, when I call out names in a class register I find that so many of my pupils have names that, in the context of the Chewa community, have no meanings at all. I read names like ‘Spanner’, ‘Post it’, ‘Size’, ‘England’, ‘Cup’, ‘Envelope’, ‘Brush’, ‘Stamp’, ‘Syndicate’ ‘New house’, ‘Too much’ and even ‘Post office’. With the coming of cell phones with their new vocabularies, we are likely to have new names like ‘Mobile’, ‘Voicemail’, ‘Motorola’, ‘Nokia’ ‘Talk time’ and the like. Yes, they are really ‘civilised English’ names.

I recall vividly the many days my siblings and I would accompany our parents to the maize field. We would listen to stories and check for spider holes to see whether they had closed their outlets, which was an indication that it would rain that day. This would be confirmed by sounds made by some birds and the amount of dew present that day. The less the dew the more likely it would rain and vice versa. This was some kind of triangulation. The relationship between human beings, the environment and the animal world was very strong (Vuolab, 2000). I recall how my father asked me to chase away a small bird that was sitting on the elephant grass near where we were weeding, singing what I thought was a beautiful song. I later learnt that in that song, the small bird was complaining about the weeds in the field. This is what prompted the chasing away of this small bird. That was a discouraging song. Then, the language was reinforced by the games we played with words through riddles, proverbs, and transpositions of syllables or songs. The riddles were to test our judgment, and myths to explain the origin of our tribe and the genesis of man (Omolewa, 2001; Semali, 1999). These were narrated with care and repetition. They were like lessons readily illustrated in simple personal life stories, recollections and memories (Wendland, 2004). These lessons offered us training in what I, as a teacher now, would consider as a complicated linguistic system and yet taught without a script. This is what Rogers (2003) describes as unconscious learning leading to tacit knowledge. This formed part of indigenous education, history, and one of the multiple ways of knowing things. This was the knowledge passed on from the generation of my grandparents and parents to us (Smith, 1934; Clarke; 1978; Smith, 1984). The lessons provided a powerful new sense of identity. Above all, it was education for all.

Then I went to a primary school. My parents made it clear to me that I needed to go to school if I were to find a job and look after them and myself in the future. I found this very confusing as there were already a good number of boys and girls in our village and even in the neighbouring villages, who went to school and reached Grade seven or even Form three but did not have jobs. They were even worse off compared to those who never went to school but looked after other people’s cattle in the village and were given a cow as payment after seven years, the same seven years I would spend in a primary school. Coming out of school after seven years or more with no job prospects meant seven or more years wasted. I kept on telling myself that if such a situation befell me, I would have no job yet no cow to pay for dowry for my marriage. My hopes were that, at least, school would teach me some practical skills and farming techniques that would make me a better farmer than those in my village who never went to school.

To my surprise, I found that the harmony between what you learn at school and what you experience in everyday life at home was not only broken but also lost as observed by Serpell (1993) in his study of the significance of schooling among the Chewa people. My struggle began when I was told I had to stand when talking to my teachers. This was a contradiction because when in the community, kneeling was the sign of respect and standing when talking to elders was a sign of rudeness. Speaking in my mother tongue, the language of my community, was a punishable offence as such languages were said to be primitive, which meant that everybody in my community was primitive. We were told to ask for permission in English to go and attend to a call of nature when in my community the only time you just disappear without telling anybody is when you want to answer to the call of nature. I do not need to explain what happened to me when that foreign expression of ‘Please teacher, may I go to the toilet’ was forgotten. I also learnt that while keeping quiet and looking down and listening when an elder is talking are ways of showing respect and signs of being attentive, they did not mean the same at school. The teacher would describe you as a passive learner and possibly dull. I also found it confusing to learn that asking and answering questions in class is a sign of being clever and intelligent when in my community asking questions when an elder is explaining things are signs of rudeness and an indication of lack of understanding.

When I went to secondary school, the contradictions I left at primary school followed me. I could see that the gap between community knowledge and school learning was becoming wider and wider. My parents, for example, were fond of using the Chewa expression chuma chilli mnthaka, which literally means ‘wealth is in the soil’. The expression was a constant reminder to us on the importance of farming. Among the Chewa people, farming is the main occupation. At first I thought all the pupils, at my school, would do a subject related to farming- Agricultural science. To my surprise, this subject was optional. Pupils on punishment often attended to the small production unit garden we had. This went further to reinforce the already existing negative attitude towards Agricultural science as a subject and farming as an activity. The contents of the subjects were another source of contradictions. For example, one of the early lessons we had in Agricultural science was about the combustion system of a tractor, the tractor I have never used to date. The use of a plough, driven by oxen, was an everyday thing among my people. During holidays, my father would always be angry with me for failing to drive the oxen properly when cultivating in our maize field.

“You are now in Grade 8 at secondary school, and you still do not know how to guide the oxen properly!” my father would exclaim at me.

“How do I tell him that we do not do such kind of things? Why do my parents think school should do everything for them?” I would ask myself.

My parents, along with those of my friends, did not know that learning how to plough with oxen was not part of our Agricultural science syllabus. We were learning ‘progressive agriculture’ of tractors used by commercial farmers and not ‘retrogressive knowledge’ of the plough and oxen used by peasant farmers. We were learning how to grow cash crops like sunflower, cotton, tobacco and the like. We were learning more about the rivers and mountains of Europe and America and little, if anything, about our own rivers and hills, from where we would fish and hunt, respectively, for our living (Nyerere, 1968, Warren et al., 1995). This was confusing to me. The school and my immediate environment tended to pull in opposite directions, so to speak.

In a nutshell, I would say that these experiences have made me discover that there is a school culture and a village culture and that not all knowledge is knowledge; that the alternative knowledge to school knowledge is currently classified as ignorance. Now at my age, I can argue that the conquest of the mind through the advent of early missionary education and colonialism has had a forceful impact on Africa as a continent, Zambia as a country and the Chewa people as a tribe (Semali, 1995; 1999; Kanu, 2007a). There is still a widely held view that anything associated with African culture and hereditary values is pagan and thus backward (Keal, 2003; Odora, 1994). The impact has left a legacy that anything African is inferior to that with a European or English tag. In my village today, if a dog gave birth to four puppies and two looked better than the other, the better ones would be classified as twa chizungu (English breed) and the other miserable looking ones twa chi firica (the African breed). Even my fellow teachers teaching Zambian languages would rather be called ‘language teachers’ with an omission of ‘Zambian’ for fear of being laughed at by colleagues.

This struggle of trying to find parallels in my culture with what is being taught in the classroom at school is the struggle I would like to pursue in my research paper even at this late hour in my life. My argument is not an appeal to an assumed “classy” past to which we should nostalgically return, a notion Kanu (2007a) also opposes. We can draw from the Chewa riddle that says, tambala alila napenya kwao (meaning the rooster cries while looking back to where it came from- home). The answer to this riddle is ‘a bunch of banana’ because it always boughs toward the tree where it originated from before the fruit matures. This is similar to the Ghanaian Akan concept of sankofa (meaning “return to the past to move forward”) which I have referred to in other chapters. My position is that there is need to re-think and re-appropriate some of the African indigenous knowledge values and social organisations (Kanu, 2007b) and integrate them into the formal school curriculum. That way school and community could have the same agenda of development and sing the same song, where the differences that may exist should be viewed by all stakeholders like the sopranos, basses and the tenors that all contribute to the production of a quality song, to be danced to by all, regardless of age, gender, disability, religious and economic status.

In other words, how does globalization proceed? Does it proceed with the Western world forcing its knowledge system down every human being's throat across the globe? Or does it negotiate and learn from other people, who are obviously different, in the world? How did these people exist before the glorified West came to save them from ignorance? Please refer to the experience (in the link below) of the Tzotzil indigenous women in Mexico working with Chiapas University to improve their sheep:

http://practicalaction.org/docs/advocacy/sustaining_agric_biodiversity.doc. Perhaps this is the way forward with indigenous knowledge.

I've lived on the Navajo Nation for something like 25 years and have learned a thing or two over that time. One characterization of Navajo "traditional" knowledge or culture is that it is made up teachings and other narratives passed down through the Elders, but it is also augmented by elements borrowed from other cultures. To roughly paraphrase the concept, it is said that Navajo recognize what is good in other cultures and they incorporate in into their own. A medicine man once told me that he liked the electricity and the running water; it made his life better. Many identifying elements of "traditional" Navajo culture were borrowed from mainstream American culture within the last 150 years: fry bread, velveteen blouses and long voluminous skirts for girls and women, rugs colored by commercial dyes, rug patterns borrowed from children's books (brightly colored dinosaurs) to name a few. This is said to be one of the great strengths of the Navajo--the ability to adapt to new (welcome or unwelcome) situations they experience. For instance, Navajo oral history says that is one of the reasons that the people, in general, survived their brutal four-year incarceration at Bosque Redondo (Fort Sumner )in New Mexico) and were alive to return home. I discuss this and related issues in my book, Language Shift among the Navajos: Identity Politics and Cultural Continuity, published by the University of Arizona Press.

In conclusion, I don't want to leave the reader with the impression that everything introduced by "Western culture" was embraced. The US government, the military, the churches, the purveyors of alcohol, commercial enterprises, and, very powerfully, the schools were almost unanimously driven by a program of forced-assimilation. A telling phrase, the motto of one reservation school, was "Kill the Indian, Save the Man."

I think it is a loaded question. There can be no right answers for wrong questions. It assumes that indigenous knowledge does not develop. It also assumes that changes introduced by development are not rapidly becoming obsolete. Knowledge is generated, developed and used to meet human needs. For meeting these needs modern societies are embracing older forms of knowledge and ""indigenous" societies are assimilating new forms of knowledge. No indigenous knowledge claims to be final and restricts learning new knowledge. Development is closely related to enhancing the range of human choices. In this respect segregating two types of knowledge and presenting them as mutually exclusive is very suffocating thought, because it insists on reducing human choices in the name of developmental thinking. This is more of a developmental fundamentalism than openness to learning which is crux of development and freedom.

My point was that it is significant (in my research, at least) to look at how the people themselves categorize types of knowledge, rather than giving priority to how researchers from outside the group impose alien categories.

I agree with you Deborah. Development is about enhancing the range of choices and exercising freedom to make choices. On this point it is not the indigenous or modern knowledge but the act of choice which is relevant. We cannot make judgments on anyone's choice and label them pro or anti development.

Not really everywhere, but most often it is the case.

Indigenous knowledge most often stands to be anti-development.

 Here is an example, the fishing festivals, which bases on the indigenous knowledge. Much of the indigenous knowledge cam be be improved to Modern Technical Knowledge (MTK) with research and technological outputs.

I have attached a research paper on the issues of indigenous knowledge prevailing in fisheries science.

http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/26031/1/IJTK%2013(1)%2070-86.pdf

My lifetime experiences have taught me and  made me discover that there is a "school culture" that when attended one is assumed to be educated, and that there exists " an  indigenous- community based  village culture". In the field of knowledge know-how one is educated first by the community on relevant survival skills,  communal etiquite and domestic etiqute/ manners as part of normal survival knowledge and that not all knowledge is useful sustainable survival knowledge. Yet even now most developed communal cultural knowledge  are currently classified as ignorance.