What does one expect otherwise? This is the inevitable sorry state of affairs that pervaded other “indigenous” (the predominant as such in a country but relegated owing to invasion and occupation, imperialism and slavery). Your words encouraged me and provided impetus to reminisce some reflections, ascribed to Archbishop Desmond Tutu (or is it to Jomo Kenyatta?) “When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land."

Dear Kamaljit:

Very well articulated question and inspiring question! The word “indigenous”, in biology and medicine (broadly in biological sciences), may mean: native populations; born; native to; naturally inhabiting; people inherent in and existing originally in a region place or country by birth or origin; existing; meaning endemic. These are people natural (original) to the area in question (original inhabitants), originally existing traditionally as part of the nature of the community. The word would then mean “original”. Indigenous medicine characterizes the medicine of organized natural communities, endemic and innate to an area, place, etc. These definitions are fairly straight forward. Depending upon perception and stereotyping, the word “indigenous” might also be “exoticism”, as you have mentioned, depending upon the usage; “exotic” may even be euphemism (for derogatory or disparaging expression). Exoticism: Being exotic; very different; unusually very strange, involving striking sensational contrasts or incongruities (bizarre); exotic – alien.

Some examples: “Viking invaders quickly subdued the indigenous population, known as the Picts.” “Though Gilded Age architecture was not indigenous to America, at least it was borrowed from…”

It turns out that in some situations the exotic become alien while the alien becomes native.

One would feel that the word, "indigenous", may have been indiscriminately used without any sensitivity and no concern for sensibilities. Certain words such as these appear to be so very absorbing. In the United States, not too long ago, immigrants were officially called "alien residents" or "resident aliens”; which have been replaced by the term, "permanent resident". The broad terminology used in the US senate and other outfits to refer to an immigrant or non-immigrant in the USA had been "aliens"! A more dignified and sensible definition was applied in the sister North American country - Canada, where, in this scenario, the term "landed immigrant" has now been replaced with "permanent resident".

Thanks indeed. You have provided very good explanation for 'Indigenous' and exotic....It is a sorry situation in Australia where people were taken away from land, and as a result many have lost their connections, and I have been thinking what should be the appropriate word to address this? As you have mentioned, Exoticism may be one such word.....or Indigenous-aliens/exoticism (sure, I do not want/mean to relate this to any negative meaning)?

Dear Kamaljit,

Thank you. I too did not want to sound negative. It is a deplorable situation in Australia, a sordid tale. It is the capricious nature of these things. When Tibet was "taken up" by China, what ensued was chaos.  Ancient texts in Sanskrit/Pali, invaluable treasures, were destroyed, not to mention the lives of an original population. No action was forthcoming from champions of democracy and of liberties simply because there was no oil to be tapped in Tibet!

yes, agree with that. I read about Tibet, and His Holiness, the Dalai Lama how he escaped to India, its an eye opener for me why other countries, especially the UN haven't done anything to prevent that overtaking/intrusion...You are right- no oil. 

I believe one day people will face the consequences of their actions. Australian situation from Indigenous well-being perspectives is like a fourth world where people have access to all the modern basic facilities but not the core 'land' that they want for their culture, education, etc. all sort of things to do to be happy!

Chithan, as deplorable as it was in Australia that the original inhabitants were removed from their lands, just as deplorable it was in the United States when the same happened to the original inhabitants that they called the Indians.  The violence of the nineteenth century perpetrated against these "indigenous peoples" if you want to call them that mars all Hollywood´s glorification of the Old U.S. West.  It saddens me to visit museums commemorating unequal battles between the so-called "cowboys" and the so-called "Indians."

Nelson: Extraordinary point. Thank you very much.

This abominable –poignant - issue (“cultural transformation) crossed my mind as I was initially answering the current question. The scenario that you have touched upon is a story of elephant versus house fly in combat. What was meted out contravened every fabric of ethics and morality. Sometimes I am reminiscent of the pages of Mark Twain. How the West was won?" (Sam Houston and how Texas was won!). I often associate this issue of "taking over" with crimes against humanity. In the museum in Fort Forth, tour guides gleefully retrace this feat to glory. Elementary school children in the USA were conditioned to the cowboy/Indian stories, and the prideful awe inspiring “adventures” in the West. I do not know what the story is now with the schools.

"Indigenous peoples", "aboriginals" and the land...The story of the magnificent island, Grand Island, in the continent of North America...

"Although the Revolutionary War ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783, the British continued to hold Fort Niagara until 1796. After the British were expelled from this area, the Iroquois claimed that the title to the islands in the river reverted to them. The State of New York, anxious to avoid antagonizing the Indians, recognized their claim. Representatives of the State met with the Indians in council at Buffalo Creek. There, on September l2, 1815, New York purchased Grand Island and other small islands in the Niagara River for one thousand dollars.”

State University of New York at Buffalo.

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~sorelm/History.htm

Why not ask the People themselves? Some People (or their organizations, to make things easier) state clearly that they are indigenous, providing some Kind of Definition of this concept (as opposed to something else). At least in the case of many indigenous movement in the Americas, an ideology of the Special relationship of indigenous peoples to their land (as a means of symbolic defense of it) is also provided - here Comes into Play the famous "ecological Indian".

Canada created separate federal territories (Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Yukon) to help and advance the life of North American Indians. The lives of “native” Indians in the province of Quebec (PC), in Canada, are precarious and deplorable. By undertaking the James Bay project and building dams both upstream and downstream PC politicians killed a civilization and way of life, as North American Indian lives there were intricately associated with James Bay. New York State yielded to public pressure from its residents, and canceled a contract with PC, to procure electricity from the second James Bay project (amounting to millions [maybe a billion] of dollars each year)

Thanks, that has happened with many indigenous and local communities. Here, in Australia, the main thing for Aboriginal people were their land, and it was taken away through 'Terra Nullius', still people are spending 10-20 years for processing their applications for   Native Titles...and this has made many people alienated to their own country, culture and language.

There's no single way of being Indigenous.  Degrees of cultural immersion vary, degrees of political involvement vary. Making assumptions about what an Indigenous person will be like is a sign that stereotypes are at work.

I agree...but there is need to identify 'indigenousness' as those people are different and have different set of values, capabilities and so their perspectives are different (in general terms; given that one is close to indigenousness). 

Indigenous for me is and foremost the people/owners of that land, example I come from the Cook Islands but in the Cooks, there are 15 islands Rarotonga being the mainland. I am from another island (Mangaia) 40 mins on the plane from Rarotonga. I was born and raised there for 9 yrs and migrated to NZ however I identify myself as indigenous of that island, not as a indigenous of the Cook Islands,-  this has been identified on my birth certificate. 

I agree with Kamaljit, maintaining protocols, customs and values/traditions, and not forgeting your mother tounge is important. We pass this onto to our children to learn where they come from (by family reunion once a year back on the land) and who is on the land they can go to and this continues through out generations. You cannot go as a tourist and park your tent anywhere on our island without consulting with the people on the land. The law is in the people's hand and chiefs appointed and our queen for any land disputes among families.

Indigenous has all the right to their  land, sea and so forth-  but sadly for the indigenous people of Australia, they have been deprived of their rights.

Thank you, Tua.

Yes, they are natural people populating their area; the land belongs to them; it is their birth right.

It is deeply distressful. This is the sad story for almost a whole continent, North America. As said before, it is a total disaster for North American Indians, decimation of earth, culture, traditions, and way of life. 

I had earlier furnished some definitions.

Viking invaders quickly subdued the indigenous population, known as the Picts. —Jared M. Diamond, Collapse, 20

Good points, Tua...especially providing your insights on Indigenousness. Thanks.

I work with the Aboriginal people in Australia and being an ecologist and NR economist, I could see how many socio-economic problems are linked to people's deprivation of land. Unfortunately our policies don't encompass a holistic perspective of people's living as Indigenous people lived in the past. I guess, there is a need to find a way forward....

I would like to ask if anyone knows of an Indigenous well-being framework that integrated indignenous perspectives into account?

Dear Kamaljit:

I recently posted an answer on another question page

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Human_rights_How_to_be_dtermined?_tpcectx=home_feed

with some links that may interest you. There is information in several of the web sites that is relevant to your question.

here is the answer I posted:

*******************************************************************

For linguistic rights and the collective rights of ethnic groups, here are some good links. The concept of collective rights is important, as it takes human rights beyond the individual level that had been the main focus until a few decades ago.

http://www.linguistic-declaration.org/index-gb.htm

http://www.unesco.org/cpp/sp/declaraciones/linguisticos.htm

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/Links_Policy.html

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/strengthening-education-systems/languages-in-education/

http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/equality-and-discrimination/indigenous-and-tribal-peoples/lang--en/index.htm

http://www.ciemen.org/index.cfm?lg=en

Dear David

Many thanks...I'll have a look and will discuss.

Kind regards

kamal

Dear Philipp

I guess that could be much more appropriate...people who have retained their knowledge and connections to land where they belonged to, can serve an important indicator/symbol. However, in countries such as Australia where people were taken away from land and that separation resulted in loss of connections- how we deal with it?

Its perfectly fine to say/use 'Indigenous/aboriginal' where people are well connected to their system. I am not sure about those who have lost their connections but now aspire to have such connections?

Thank you, Dr Wright-Carr for your interesting input.

Dear Kamaljit,

It cannot be better articulated!

There are a number of contributory and confounding factors at play in this regard. As things have devolved, there have been dramatic shifts in values as they pertain to traditional living and living traditions. Sequestration of power, and indiscriminate and unjust land acquisition have played havoc. Materialism of changing times has been at the pivotal axis of a nation in its broad policy and strategy, strategic interests and global outlook.

We considered indigenous species are those which grow naturally or they have long been cultured into an area after some sorts of human modifications. 

Dear Ripu

I guess your answer is more applicable to plant/animal species and that is well recognised. However, we are talking here from human perspective.

kamal 

Dr Kamaljit,

Yes you are right. We are applying the term indigenous for those plants and animals which have long been cultured after some sorts of human modification. 

Thanks Ripu for clarification.

kamal

I still maintain that indigenous is a human race of that land surrounded by plants, animals, sea, etc and they make use of everything for their wellbeing and has a culture in their own rights. Colonisation world wide plays alot of what we are trying to seek a meaning , and has a huge impact on the culture of that land. Example, missionaries has impacted on my own ancestors changing cultures and beliefs and making them believe that their ways are right and created war among the different tribes to make that change.  

Yes Tua, I am along the same lines. Indigenousness involves the landscape where people live in, their relationships with the different component of landscape. Its not just the plant/animals that is usually perceived from natural systems' perspective (as Ripu wrote). Our purpose of discussion is holistic - includes people as well as their natural systems. I guess, I come back to the main Q again - how can we appropriately reflect such connections for policy decision making?

There has been some valuable comments/suggestions and references suggested by our discussion members- thanks indeed. I reckon there is a lot to learn!

Many missionaries have good intentions, but their big mistake, in most cases, is their diagonal (descending) cultural perspective.

Meaningful intercultural interaction should take place on a horizontal plane.

For spontaneous comments (in Spanish) on the indigenous peoples of north central Mexico, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWWzkOu8B30&feature=youtu.be

Transcription in Spanish: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264044263_Entrevista_%28transcripcin%29?ev=prf_pub

English translation: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264044356_Interview_%28English_translation%29?ev=prf_pub

Data Entrevista (transcripción)

Data Interview (English translation)

ThanksDavid

You are very welcome, Tua. As Kamaljit points out, the intimate relationship with the environment is certainly one of the strong aspects of most indigenous cultures. Migration (out of and into traditional indigenous territories) has created new challenges, involving the preservation of indigenous identities in a context of cultural diversity. In some cases this weakens traditions, in other cases it can strengthen them, although either way change is inevitable. The challenge is to channel this change in a positive direction.

Dear Ghanendra:

Religion and nationality are two elements that form part of the complex mosaic we call "culture," but there are many more. Ethnic identity can draw on these or on other elements that are included in this mosiac. The concept of indigenous identity has many facets: cultural, ethnic, historical, etc. I think it all depends on how people think and behave, and to what extent they can agree with each other (and with other peoples). I hope I am making sense. It is getting late here in Guanajuato (Mexico), 12:21 AM to be precise. I shall visit this question page again tomorrow and read your comments with great interest.

I am an Indigenous person. The practice of non-Indigenous people defining the parameters of Indigeneity (as seems to be happening in this thread) is part of the foundation of colonialism.

Dear Ghanendra: I think it is important to consider ethnic identity as a complex phenomenon drawing on many separate cultural elements, of which religion is but one. If we define spatial and temporal limits for these elements, it is often the case that each one has distinct boundaries, and these are often fuzzy. As Margaret pointed out this morning, ethnicity has been defined by indigenous groups themselves and by others: their neighbors, government officials, and academics, and these definitions may not coincide, or the may only partly coincide. Of course the indigenous peoples' self-definitions are the most important. I think that sometimes our theoretical concepts can become an obstacle to our understanding of sociocultural reality in all of its complexity.

The word "native" is in vogue in Canada (example, native studies program, University of Manitoba).

Dear Ms. Robinson:

>

This is understandable. With all due respect then, we must marginalize and relegate all history books written on India by the British to the dustbin. Among other things, history for British historians starts with the Genesis, and accordingly the universe is 4,000 years old, which would be summarily rejected even by a middle school child today. Some individuals in the USA have expressed the idea that you have to be born as a black (African American) in order to understand what it is to be a Black American (their trials, being slaves, subjugation and injustice). This unreservedly makes sense. No one would have qualms about this. One wonders what  the benefits would be for the Whites to write books and monographs about Blacks in the USA, and if any altruism is associated with this.

I seriously doubt if Ms Kamaljit Kaur Sangha, who has admirably spearheaded this thread, is an Indigenous or native person! Pardon me, Ms. Sangha for the incursion. Her question is: What "Indigenous" actually means for professionals from different disciplines? And, that is precisely the reason that several RG members are here by this thread.

Dear Chithan and Margaret

Yes, I am not indigenous but am trying to put Indigenous perspectives forward to the policy makers/government institutions from Indigenous people's viewpoint. 

Margaret- I do not think, in the modern era, someone who tries to understand Indigenous culture is a part of colonialism/its process. I come from a trans-discplinary perspective where I highly value and respect indigenous connections to land and how the whole socio-cultural-economic world is connected to land, the notion of well-being. 

I believe, in the modern (globalised) world, to live in harmony, there is need to under different cultures and respect/value for what they are rather than imposing one's own perspective on others (as happened in the colonialism), but it does not happen now. For policy decision making, it is important to understand such perspectives as otherwise the old trend just continues!

Quick Indigenous Facts- Indigenous Connect (Univ of Manitoba)

Many of the points found below (Indigenous peoples) are also evident in answers furnished in this threat.

http://umanitoba.ca/admin/indigenous_connect/3296.html 

Indigenous peoples: Cultural or ethnic groups who are Indigenous to a land or region, especially before the arrival of a foreign and/or a possibly dominating culture. Indigenous peoples share a cultural identify that has been shared by their geographical region. Indigenous peoples are generally regarded as the “original inhabitants” of a territory or region.

Aboriginal peoples: The collective name for the Indigenous peoples of North America and their descendants. The Canadian constitution recognizes three groups of Aboriginal peoples: First Nations, Metis and Inuit. First Nations, Metis and Inuit have unique histories, languages, cultural practices and spiritual beliefs.

Dear Ghanendra: I read with immense interest your reflections on proselytization and religious conversion in Nepal. This ever increasing, inexorable devious practice is like a viral blight on society at large and an incessant curse; it is against every moral and ethical fabric. Your epithet - lollipop-conversion – is intriguing. This reminds me of the “peanut conversion” of destitute and vulnerable lower classes (so called) and castes of India, which has gone on for centuries. During the colonial days in India there was a huge influx of indiscriminate preachers from Britain, allowed by the British government. Forced conversions were rampant. Today, no nook or corner in India is immune to this noxious, horrendous practice. I am posting this again, some reflections, ascribed to Archbishop Desmond Tutu (or is it to Jomo Kenyatta?) “When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land." How Africa was won!

Dear Ghanendra

Its a good question that many communities have faced or are facing throughout the world. I would like to hear what the experts say...

From my personal perspectives- I would consider 'Indigenous' are those people who are close to their own set of values in all aspects of life, including religion. Although, we know that colonialism has played a significant role in promoting Christianity and Islam (especially in the Indian sub-continent), and often through financial (commodities) help to the poor. To me, this is not the right way to promote a particular religion, it should be based upon people's will and it should have humanitarian basis.

ManyIndigenous people in Australia has faced the similar circumstances. As I come to know from some of my friends, they have now stopped following Christianity and they are exploring their own spiritual/religious beliefs.