I would add to Philipp's statement that it is not solely a positioning of class, but often first and foremost, one of racial distinction.

Form my work with indigenous peoples, it is strongly a sense of time , place and values. This refers to identity that is specific to the place: this particular natural world [mountains, rivers, lakes, sea] and one's specific, not general, relationship to it. The sense of time: that one's ancestors are of this place, often with creation stories linked to it. And that personal identity flows from the spiritual framework that integrates this world view. Indigneity only becomes a 'movement' when these beliefs or ability to live according to them are threatened form outside [colonization]. This threat is a common, shared experience of many peoples as people who do not share these views come to populate their land, or mine their resources. Thus it becomes an international movement.

Good topic! And, indeed, one that calls for a more cautious use of the term "indigenous". That is why, from an African perspective, I generally prefer the term "endogenous", as opposed to anything "exogenous".

From my work with indigenous peoples they do not refer to themselves as indigenous but are referred to as such or refer to themselves as such only in the context of exploitation/domination or in the context of a movement. Their social organisation is very inclusive and there is great diversity within what is referred to as indigenous!

I tend to disagree with treating indigenous peoples within a social classes scheme, because colonization is not solely an economic process, but includes political, cultural, and juridical characteristics, and because persons from the same low social class, but of different cultures, tend to perceive indigenous peoples as national enemies or representatives of a lost primitive past.

Yet the racial distinction is not sufficient to identify/determine indigeneity, especially because of the point made by Sudhamshu Dahal - internal colonization is often practiced among peoples that are racially very close, especially in Asia and Africa. I like defining indigenous peoples as ethnic groups (as does Brazilian anthropologist Roberto de Oliveira Lima), meaning a social group that defines its social frontiers in terms of pertaining to a culture or tradition. So here, Oliveira Lima's concept also differs from Alexander Simpson's proposition: the indigenous sense of time, place and values is not what defines indigeneity, but it is part of the cultural contents that are manipulated as elements of the ethnic borders. I agree with Simpson's second argument, lying on Linda Tuhiwai Smith's ideas: it was "an indigenous social movement that started as a movement of the people and became a movement of peoples", especially after the 1960s (Decolonizing Methodologies, 1999, p. 108).

I found the present topic very interesting, as well as the answers proposed, for they show how multiple and tricky this concept can be. I have an article discussing this subject, written in Portuguese. In case you are interested, please contact me.

To my knowledge the term "indigenous", refers to a local status, right from the begining,before some other thing. It derives from "indigena - indigenae". The word was used intensely during colonialism, meaning reference to all that was local before that process - as such, indegenous people; indigenous art,and so on. Due to this, the word came to be used in a pejorative sense.

The United Nations definition of who is Indigenous is simple - basically the original peoples of a country before colonisation.

The real issue as I see it is:

'Why are semantic used to try to undermine the definition of Indigenous peoples?'

An odd thing in academia is the alarming use of semantics to redefine the word Indigenous by people, who are not Indigenous to a country, to claim indigenous knowledge. I have read academics from different countries claim that their knowledge is somehow Indigenous - because it was developed in the country they reside in. I have also read works by people who may be Indigenous to another country, lay claim to being Indigenous or having Indigenous knowledge of their current country of residence because; a) they have lived there a long time (30 yrs), or; their family has been there for generations. Using this logic, English people of African decent can claim to be Indigenous English because African people have lived and working in England for over 400 year,s originally as slaves.

This semantic use of Indigenous appears to be a move for personal gain by academics as their papers, reports etc are replete with the word Indigenous I assume in the hope that they will be more likely to gain funding or academic recognition. Oddly, in Australia at least, these academics don't claim to be Indigenous outright - just that somehow their knowledge, views or insight, are indigenous.

This quasi semantic claim, simply serves to belittle or deny the reality of Indigenous peoples, and in the instance of colonised people it seeks to nullify the history and harshness of colonisation.

Colonisation may well have given rise to the term Indigenous, but the identity and culture/knowledge of Indigenous peoples was there before colonisation and has been carried forward, adapted to accommodate the current realities.

Philipp, you suggest that Indigenous "self-identification has to do with indigenous movements and political ideologies".

Of course being Indigenous is related to do with Indigenous movements and political ideologies - usually underlined by demands for social justice. Google the 'Idle No More' movement as an example of a current Indigenous political movement based on the political ideology of social justice.

With this appropriation of the word Indigenous, the real issue I believe is:

Who is asking - Philipp Altman are you Indigenous?, and

Why are you asking a question that is clearly answered - what is your intent?

I'd somewhat agree with Stenger as a researcher operationalizing my terms used. Personally I see indigenous related to "firstness" or priority in place. To me the Lenni Lenape American Indians are/were indigenous to the Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey area, and even though they were relocated to Oklahoma they remain indigenous as a first/original people there, but indigenous to the states mentioned. On a secondary level, in the 1960's the term was sometimes used for people who had lived a long time in one neighborhood, and resented being planned for by "colonizers" from outside the neighborhood.

Joe

In relation to "firstness" and a special relation to the space where the indigenous people lives, I would like to point out the brazilian case, where the term indigenous is -also- a legal term used in order to get special recognition from the state - for instance in terms of positive discrimination in the education system. Therefore, the "indigenity" in Brazil has become quite open, with lots of persons that in terms of genes or family tradition could not claim to be indigenous - but nevertheless, understand themselves as indigenous and are accepted as such by the respective communities.

How would you treat a case like that?

This is where I find the operationalization important. Even in the US the government of the US has laws or customs sanctioned as long standing rules to govern how certain people are included or excluded from consideration in identity as "indian" Up until Reagan the US customarily used the one drop of blood as sufficient to name one "colored" or African American, and used that also for American Indian claims for federal college scholarships. At some point about the same time they moved to a one-thirty-second ancesteral claim, but I never saw that in writing. The point I can make on the American Indian lineage is that Reagan moved the family legal recognition to having been listed in the 1906 federal tribal lists. I recall in the late 1980's having one student rejected on those grounds, and another getting a scholarship for being able to prove his background. Obviously these fall as anecdotal knowledge, and in this context don't mean much, but the point is that the Brazilian laws are not unusual in that I'm sure lots of people here might claim "indigenity" recognized by their family or community but not be recognized by the state. ALso, having taught a course on the Native Americans this past semester, one point that is apropos here might be that Indian marriage to a white incorporated that white member into the tribe. Even captured whites (usually women) forced into marriage became tribal members. So how does one follow their genes over generations as being indigenous prior to the colonizers gaining ultimate power over the indigenous people? At this point it becomes a genetic discussion.

If we analyse the answers and perspectives, it seems to me that they do not differ from what I summed up in my ealier and earlier reply.

And to complement the above: it means always the absense of a rural-urban divide. In indigenous peoples f.ex. we will not find peasants, as peasants are in a logic relation with city dwellers and people living in a society with division of labour, i.e. a state.

On the relation "THE COUNTRY AND THE CITY", I huge recommend the book of Raymond Williams.

Several people on this thread have identified indigenous in terms of cultural identity and connectedness. Yet, many people who claim indigenous identity do not participate in their traditional cultural at all. That is especially true in Hawai’i, where I live and work. In discussing academics, Lorraine Muller writes that “This semantic use of Indigenous appears to be a move for personal gain...” I think her comment has much validity today, although I would not limit this to academics. A significant number of people who claim indigenous identity as well do so because they see some advantage in it. I also work with and study groups in central India referred to as “indigenous” or “tribal” by the govt and by most who write about them. Yet, neither term seems to be one of self-identity for those who live almost exclusively in a village reality. Instead, they tend to self-identify using the name of their family lineage or tribe, such as Gond, Bhil, Baiga, etc. Many of those who find value in labels such as “indigenous’ come from or have ancestors from such families but now live in urban areas where such labels provide a valued identity because of govt grants, etc.

Here in Hawai’i, for example, the “indigenous” label opens the possibility of many govt benefits. The sole determinant for these is claimed blood quantum (see Joseph Ruane’s comments in this regards) and has next to nothing to do with culture. I say “claimed” because here the percentage issue is very important. In past decades, certain homestead land benefits were created by the govt but limited only to those who could claim 50% blood quantum. Subsequently, there were situations where some people with political influence were able to conveniently “discover” that they had the required percentage needed. Some of these had no functional relationship to the traditional culture at all. At the same time, there are people of non-Hawaiian descent or with no blood quantum claim whose families have been living here since at least the 1800s, who have a close affiliation with and participate in the traditional culture, and yet are not considered indigenous precisely because of the blood quantum issue. Thus, it appears that the meaning of the term “indigenous” varies dependent upon time, place, and various others contexts, including politics, but actual involvement in the culture does not seem to be as important as some might suggest.

Finally, I think the question is a good one that both academics and politicians need to consider and discuss, so I wonder what Dr. Muller means when she claims “the real issue” to be “Who is asking - Philipp Altman are you Indigenous?, and Why are you asking a question that is clearly answered - what is your intent?” Is she implying that only certain people can ask questions? In an academic forum such as this, is not the purpose of asking questions, especially such an important one, so that we might all better understand the issue? Since there are obviously many understandings and misunderstandings of the term being discussed, it is a question that is far from “clearly answered.”

Ramdas Lamb, I ask for Philipp to clarify if he is Indigenous, because without self reflection of the intent of the inquirer, the question raised by Philipp and the answers given in this thread, must be treated with caution.

When the questions of "who is Indigenous" and also "what is Indigenous" are raised, if the questioner has not reflected deeply on why they ask it can too often be just another motion of colonisation.

The issue of Indigeniety is a vexing one for colonisers as it relates to their validity of colonial ownership/control of the colonised territories. If they can destroy the notion or claim to Indigenous people then that negates any claims by the Indigenous peoples to their land, knowledges or calls for justice arising from colonisation.

If colonisers can deny the validity of Indigenous peoples then their assets are ripe for plundering and appropriating.

It is also worth noting that colonisation is not a past event: colonisation continues, but these days colonisers are referred to as migrants, settlers or global citizens.

These days colonisation also relates to knowledges. If enough non-Indigenous people use twisted semantics to rewrite the meaning of Indigenous, it then becomes an intentional act of colonisation as it places Indigenous peoples and their scholars into the milieu of generic knowledges - having no difference from 'nice/civilized' Western knowledges.

Too often, it is non-Indigenous academics/workers or people who set themselves up as 'expert' on Indigenous peoples - denying the Indigenous peoples the right to be expert on their own lives. In Australia, so called 'experts' have been known to challenge Indigenous Elders on their Indigenous knowledges. Non-Indigenous 'experts' are employed, seemingly preferred, by our universities to teach Indigenous knowledges.

Taking the politics of colonisation and Indigenousness into account, this is why I would like to know more about who Philipp is, and why he is asking the question. It is not a matter of only certain people asking 'who is asking, and why' as I believe that in order to put the original question into context is relevant to all readers.

When Indigenous as a contested term is raised, I personally would like to know if the questioner is an ally or just another follower, a pawn, of the ideology of colonisation.

Dr. Muller, I understand your concerns and agree with many of them. However, you seem to see things in very dualistic ways. It appears there are only two kind of beings in your world: a) indigenous peoples and their allies and b) colonizers, along with their followers or pawns. I think the world is far more complex. I have spent the last 30+ years working for the upliftment of rural Untouchables and tribal peoples in central India. The people who have been the primary sources of their problems are local and national politicians and profiteers. While many are outsiders in that they are not from the exact region, others are from their villages and their tribes. What these problem makers all do have in common is their desire for money and power at the expense of culture and to the detriment of the poor, be they "indigenous" or not.

Again, I will use Hawai'i as an example. When the first outsiders (whalers and other seafaring adventurers) came here in the late 1700s, the various island chiefs saw them as being powerful and wanted that power, so they befriended the outsiders, including Capt Cook. Of course, they subsequently killed him. Several decades later, Kamehameha I used the several dozen ships and countless guns he had acquired from the foreigners to attack all the major islands in the chain and kill all the chiefs and others who resisted him so he could rule over all of them. Would you call him a colonizer? How about a ruthless murderer? Hawaiians call him the great unifier. Is that semantics? By the time missionaries showed up in 1820, the queen at the time had recently banned the existing religious beliefs and practices, and she quickly adopted Christianity because it fit her agenda. Was she duped by the Christians or was she using them to further her interests? The answer depends on the agenda of the one giving the answer. From all I have read of her, she was not gullible or stupid.

Many of the missionaries and other outsiders subsequently married Hawaiians, so now the bulk of the more powerful and influential indigenous people here who want to create their own nation are the descendants of both those who were colonized as well as the colonizers who overthrew the monarchy. Which of your two categories would you put them in? Significantly, they don’t talk about their colonizing ancestors. Instead, they blame all their problems on the non-Hawaiians who have subsequently settled in the islands, none of whom had anything to do with the overthrow and many of whom try to help resurrect Hawaiian traditions and culture. In addition, the richest and most powerful Hawaiian foundation here, Bishop Estate/Kamehameha Schools is also the largest private land owner in the state. It has been influential in pushing the rhetoric of rights for Hawaiians and love for the land and culture. It millions of acres of land that are supposed to be used to benefit indigenous Hawaiians, yet many remain poor while the foundation’s trustees and their friends are extremely wealthy. Which of your two categories would you put them in? You may have heard of Monsanto, the company that is doing more than any other to destroy indigenous crops and heirloom seeds around the world. It’s use of genetically modified (GMO) seeds and crops is wreaking havoc to native crops and farming in many places in the world, including here in Hawaii, and it is Bishop Estate who is leasing them most of the land on which they are growing their GMO crops and experimenting with their various poisons. If you say anything negative about the estate here, you are called anti-Hawaiian.

Hopefully, you can see why I find a great deal of problems with your categories. I have a deep appreciation for traditional cultures, languages, and ways of living, and I do what I can to support those who are trying to hold onto positive elements of these. But I also know that simply because someone claims to be indigenous does not make them automatically good or oppressed. Sometimes they are just the opposite. At the same time, I am probably right with you in my dislike of missionaries and colonizers, at least most of them. I have seen what they do and are continuing to do. But, there are also many good people who now live in places where they are not a part of the indigenous population. They may be “migrants, settlers or global citizens,” people you seem to consider present day colonizers. Are all of them bad? If an indigenous person moves to a new country and tries to introduce new ways of thinking and being, would you consider that person a colonizer?

As scholars, we need to problematize the issues we study so that we do not get caught in simply thinking that glosses over the complexities of life. Indigenous is a valuable concept, and indigenous rights are very important, but the complexities involved in both of these need to be understood and studied and discussed if we really want to help those who have been disenfranchised in life, be they “indigenous” or not.

I would like to correct a mistake I made. Bishop Estate is worth nearly $10 billion. However, although it is Hawai'i's largest private landowner, its holdings currently are only 375,000 acres, not "millions." My apologies.

Ramdas, I agree that to be Indigenous does not mean 'good' or non-Indigenous does not mean 'bad', just as settlers, colonisers or global citizens does not mean 'bad'. Many people who are not Indigenous to the country they reside are staunch allies in quests for social justice.

You ask if an Indigenous person moves to another country would I consider them to be colonisers. It would depend on their actions and the ideologies they enact. In Australia some non-white new settlers have tried to usurp Indigenous Australians in many overt and covert ways. The ideology of colonisation is very pervasive and seductive for some people.

Like elsewhere, in Australia, we also have Indigenous people that put their own interests above others. Power and money are very seductive. However unlike Hawaii, Australia was a more egalitarian society pre-colonisation - we did not have chiefs but more a council of Elders (holders of the Law), women and men were equal, there was men's business and women's business and then the combined community business. Prof Boni Robertson suggested that patriarchy was the worst thing that the colonisers introduced.

I focus on the duality of Indigenous/non-Indigenous in this response because of the initial question posed. I agree and value the allies that come from some settlers and global citizens, but that doesn't mean that all are allies.

The reality is that as some settlers seek to be accepted into mainstream society they take up the prejudices and practices of the original colonial culture, often becoming as negative and exploitative as the mainstream colonialist culture.

I agree, the issue really is social justice. It is nice to know that Australia has a tradition that is more egalitarian. Here in Hawai’i, that was not the case at all, so what is happening now is really just a continuation of the same power hierarchy that long existed....just different players.

In central India, the tribal groups I work with also do not traditionally have much of a hierarchy. However, as they become influenced by the world around them, you can see one developing. Sometimes, reminding people of their past can be an inspiration for them to see value in what they may be losing, and to hopefully hold onto the positive elements. The work of Verrier Elwin is great in that regards. He was a British Catholic missionary in the 1920s who ended up “going native” and did some great work in support of tribal people. Although he had no academic background as an anthropologist, his writings are important sources that reveal a sensitivity to the people he lived and wrote about, and he helped empower many of them to appreciate what they had.

Works of anthropologists can be a great source of information, but as Prof Nakata points out, the interpretation that anthropologists give to the events they witness and record must be critically analyzed as it is made based on their own world view. It is not possible to remove the researcher's own cultural background from the research. If a researcher comes from a patriarchal society where women are held in low esteem, they are bound to interpret other cultures the same way.

Putting the researcher into the research means that the pretense of neutrality is foregone, and a more honest and respectful research can be conducted and the research outcomes have more academic rigor. Indigenous research methodologies uses this principle - see Margaret Kovach's "Indigenous Methodoligies" as a starting point. The other authors I mention are also worth seeking out - there are many more though.

The need to put the researcher into context is why I have asked Philipp to give more information on himself, his ethnic background and personal intent are very relevant to the question he has asked.

Again, I agree with much of what you write. However, I don't think ethnic background is necessarily that relevant. I think one of your comments is very accurate in this regards: "Putting the researcher into the research means that the pretense of neutrality is foregone, and a more honest and respectful research can be conducted and the research outcomes have more academic rigor." This is the key. So many people I meet in the cities near my village who are of the same ethnic background as those from my village but have never lived in a village have little or no practical experience of the lives and culture of rural peoples. Fahim Hussein, in his "Indigenous Anthropology in Non-Western Countries" says essentially two elements are necessary: intimate knowledge of culture and of language. If one has these, then one's ethnicity is not that relevant. If one does not have these, then one's ethnicity is irrelevant. I think if one is raised in a culture and thus has lived it one's entire life, then obviously such individuals have the potential to be true experts in that regards, but such individuals are rare. Most Indian researchers in my region were born and raised in the city. I have spent mote time living and studying in villages than they have or wish to. Thus, their ethnic background is of little help in their understanding of rural culture and the needs of the poor there.

according to me THE MATERIAL, ORGANISM, PLANT, ANIMAL PROCESS, FOOD, PRODUCT etc. which is found, used, processed, consumed, transformed and utilized by the native common man and people for their daily uses. More over it is yet to be known to any other region.

Thank you for your suggestions, Lorraine.

Parting from the latin-american, more specifically, the Ecuadorean case, I see "the indigenous" as some kind of virtual category constituted by the societies there - in almost the same way "white" or "black" may be constituted. The people there would say something like "I'm from the village XY, I'm Kichwa, I'm Indigenous, I'm Ecuadorean". So, usually they accept being indigenous as some sort of super-category that does not say much about them - just like a Frenchman, Catalan or something would probably accept being white, but would point out first of all their nationality. And this is where the indigenous movement enters the scene. The appropriation of being indigenous as a category that unites the Kichwa, Shuar, Achuar and whatever has been a political choice of the movement in order to create a bigger legitimation and base for mobilizations. So, for me it does not matter much who builds up categories - as your question for my ethic background suggests, but rather how the people within that category use it. And that's where my initial statement becomes valid: on the one hand, being indigenous means a position in a social structure build by colonial power mechanisms, on the other, the appropriation of this position in the sense of a social struggle - for social justice, if you want - even if this concept has not yet entered the discourse of the indigenous movement in Ecuador.

I do agree about the colonization buy I do not agree on the point put forwarded by Merlin.I do not know Merlin is having any idea about Cow i.e. GoMata (Cow Mother) in India. Indian society is following this tradition of the cow worship since ages. They treat the cows as wealth and always maintain the status of cow as a faithful and useful animal . If possible then please let me know the reference for the cow-eaters from the Indian anthropology or any ancient text which she trying to refer.

My point was not about the animals or the humans but for the Indigenous plants.

I am very glad to witness the internet becoming a platform for high level debate on issues that I consider so relevant. I hope that we can overcome the differences (theoretical, ideological, methodological, or else), in order to create the basis for some new social knowledge and some new social practices towards indigenous peoples.

I understand prof. Muller when she asked Philip about his ethnic background (and it was important for my own research). But then I also understand prof. Lamb when he states that he partially agrees with Muller, on ethnic background being relevant, yet he thinks that it shouldn't count as a pre-requisite for researching on Anthropology.

The most difficult point here is that most times Anthropologists take others (other peoples) as their research object. I'm not sure if that is Philip's case, or any of the others, but I find relevant that they recognize this circumstance explicitly, which will be then available for the reader together with other so-called "objective" technical, theoretical, or empirical information, in order to provide better reading.

As a Latin American who works with indigenous peoples for a few years now, I found it a little weird to hear Philip state that national identity is more relevant than ethnic identity to indigenous peoples in Ecuador (I'm not sure, but if I'd say it's not right). I confess that it did sound a little colonialist, especially coming from a non-Indigenous researcher. It sounded as if the manipulation of a transnational indigenous identity by indigenous peoples would have been proposed deliberately seeking some political goals. It sounds even more colonialist when it evokes the idea that those goals that indigenous peoples seek are actually some advantages that are now available thanks to the recognition of certain rights by the West, and that indigenous identity didn't exist previously. I'd like to make clear: Philip, don't take me bad, I am not proposing that you be burned alive, but some of those contents may probably be enmeshed within your speech. I am not indigenous either, by the way.

The other point is that indigenous realities are very unique across the different world spaces... There is not much space for generalization on "global indigenous issues", unless cum grano salis.

If a researcher is going to research another's culture, surely they must first understand their own culture, the cultural biases, nuances, values and principles - their cultural interpretation of what they consider 'normal'.

The person interpreting the anthropological gaze into Indigenous peoples has historically been biased by the ideology of colonisation, with Indigenous peoples generally portrayed as primitive, uncivilized etc. It is such scientifically biased manuscripts that enabled the colonisers in Australia to enact policies designed to 'breed out the colour' of Australia's Indigenous peoples.

When researching Indigenous peoples, surely it is not too great an expectation that the researcher knows, and can answer questions on their own culture.

I have followed this discussion with interest and would add the following for consideration. I think we have to be careful to avoid defining indigenous and colonists too tightly and I would ask that you consider the following: When does a colonists become indigenous? I am researching the movements of peoples and their cultures in prehistory and have a particular interest in North Siberia and Central Asia. It is evident that various flora, fauna and people have moved over a considerable time and if one traces back ethnic groups only those resident in Africa can claim to truly indigenous, and then we find that groups within Africa have moved around making it difficult to define any group’s origins. The origins of the Spaniards who colonized the Americas is complex for Spain as we know it at present had areas colonized by Greeks, Romans, Visigoths and Moors to name but a few. The people we may now call Spanish bear the signatures of all those cultures, but how do we identify a time when an amalgam of those colonists can be considered indigenous to the Iberian Peninsula? Prior to the invasion of the Americas by the Portuguese and Spanish the Americas was subject to south trending migrations originating in North-Eastern Siberia arguably 30,000 years BP, so at what point can a culture claim to be indigenous?

Melvin, you bring up some good points. Too often, Assumptions of where peoples ancestors came from sometimes replace fact. For example, Merlin Franco mentions a very common assumption that "The first people to arrive in india are the Adivasis (Tribal people)." "Adivasi" literally means "original resident," but DNA studies suggest that many of those who are so labelled are not different from others in India except that their ancestors chose to live in more isolation than most. In addition, I study several groups in central India labeled "Adivasi" but it appears at least one of them arrived in the region hundreds of years after other "non-tribal" people in that region. It is clearly a complex issue. I have several close Hawaiian friends who are activists and who suggest that politicians should focus on the rights of people who live in an area and show respect in whatever they do for traditional residents, culture, lifestyle, AND the land...and these should AT LEAST as important as claims of "indigeneity." Whether or not one agrees totally with them, I think their views are something that should be added into our attempt to understand the broader issue.

Melvin, I think you are drawing too much into it. If you seek to define Indigenous by tracing back to the very beginnings, this is more about seeking the origins of humanity or life.

It is grand to ponder the origins of human migration, and different influences of the waves of migrants on a population, but the science is still in flux and unproven. The dating of the original peoples in Australia is being pushed back far further than the undisputed 40,000 years. Anomalies exist that challenge the hypothesis of human migration into Australia, and DNA testing reinforces these anomalies. Some experts suggest that Aboriginal peoples have been in Australia for up to 160,000 or longer. Yet in spite of what has been proven we still have some clowns (even some academics) from a specific migrant group privately claiming that they are the original peoples of Australia - totally unsubstantiated.

Indigenous is a contested term as after giving the name, and negativity to the original peoples prior to colonisation, now there is a vested interest in deconstruction the notion of Indigeniety so that once again land, resources and peoples can be shamelessly exploited.

This is why I tend to use the United Nations definition, as the convoluted path you outline is too often used by neo-colonialists who tend to claim 'we are all Indigenous' therefore the Indigenous peoples of a country have no claim against the actions and atrocities enacted under the colonialisation process.

If you are looking at migration prehistory, and even the rise of different peoples like caucasian, asian, melanesian etc, that is a totally different thread of inquiry.

Lorraine, as I read your comments, what becomes clear to me is that your understanding of indigenous is based on your own experience and the reality on the ground in Australia. From what I understand about that context, you are accurate in your assessment of the situation, especially if you are talking about an uncontested 40,000 year history. At the same time, the reality in other places is quite different. As I mentioned in central India, there are some people called indigenous whose history in their region is likely not more than a 4-5 centuries. Thus, "indigenous" has become a broad brush that paints such a vast diversity of people as all being the same. They are obviously not. That does not mean we should not respect and try to help those whose history in a region date back many generations, and have both genetic and cultural roots closely connected to a land and lifestyle. However, we should also acknowledge that in some situations, people exaggerate and even fabricate a claim to the term for social, political, and economic benefits as is sometimes the case here in Hawai'i. As scholars, we need to study these issues, ask all sorts of questions, but also hopefully respect and help support peoples and traditions that rightly deserve it.

In my earlier reaction, I did indicate the need to use "indigenous" more carefully. Now, after reading all these learned comments, it seems to me that the use of the term "indigenous" has tended to vary depending on the perspective from which one uses it. And the debate will hardly end unless there is some sort of agreement to shift from mere descriptions of usage to a form of terminological intervention whereby proposals (by some constituted authority, say UNESCO) would be made to indicate when one's status would reasonably be considered to have changed from "settler" to "indigenous". Such proposals may still need to be founded on some generalisable empirical trends with respect, for example, to the following basic questions (NB: non exhaustive):

Who are those who tend to describe themselves as indigenous?

Who are those who tend to describe others indigenous?

Under what circumstances or in which contexts is the term indigenous generally used, by whom and for what purpose?

I began my contribution by suggesting that we do not define ‘indigenous’ too tightly. I try my best to research in a detached and scientific manner and not be influenced by ideologies. I am well retired now but I still remember as a child going to Saturday afternoon cinema and stamping my feet and shouting on behalf of the ‘Red Indians’ when the majority of children were supporting the U.S. Cavalry. I am still in the ‘Red Indian’ camp. I embrace the diversity of cultures and I morn their demise. It would be convenient to attribute a clear, precise definition to all the terms we use, this is a given scientific requirement, but sometimes definitions are unsatisfactory. Lawyers need precise definitions so that laws can do their job and sometimes they highjack scientific terms etc., to suit their requirements. Politicians bend definitions to suit their purpose and they often pressurize academics to justify their policies, they use science for their own ends. I have personally come across this in China, Russia and some Central Asian Republics where ethnic identity can be an issue. I am sure you are all well aware of the excesses of Germany’s Nazi Party. I believe that sometimes we have to accept that a scientific definition does not fit comfortably with a political definition and that scientists have a duty to defend the principles of science and not be manipulated by ‘other’ interests. UNESCO seem to accept that if you consider yourself, as a group, to be indigenous, then you are indigenous. This is not a sound scientific assertion, but I recognise that UNESCO has to work in a political sphere where at least an inadequate definition allows the development of a policy towards a worthwhile aim. I am uncomfortable with the concept that a people are only considered indigenous when their territory is threatened by colonisation. I prefer to consider that a people may be considered indigenous if they have established themselves in a territory many generations before outsiders appear, but then again I fear that is also very unsatisfactory. Maybe we have to accept that political definitions might differ from the scientific and be prepared to defend the rights of an ethnic group to exist as they feel fit.

Out of curiosity, I wonder how many of those in this discussion about who is Indigenous on this thread identify and are recognised as Indigenous people.

Lorraine I understand your problem and maybe the following exercise may highlight the problem.

An explorer discoverers a previously unknown inhabited island, how should he classify the inhabitants? He may discover the inhabitants know themselves as X and he reports that the ‘indigenous’ people of the island are X. He returns to the Island and explorers further and discovers another tribe of inhabitants in another part of the island who know themselves as Y. He also discovers that Y contests the ownership of the island with X and they claim X invaded many generations ago. He now classifies Y as the true ‘indigenous’ inhabitants, but if X had not invaded could Y still be considered the ‘indigenous’ inhabitants?

I am sure you are aware that the British used the concept of ‘terra nullius’ as an excuse to take possession of foreign territories. This concept is still being used as an excuse to control territory. It is happening in the Amazon, Siberia, Africa, China and other territories as we speak, and people, companies or states use formidable legal arguments to promote their interests. It is my opinion, as poor as that maybe, that the label ‘indigenous’ does not have sufficient strength of definition to stand up against legal argument. We need to argue that proof of title should not be a requirement for the protection of territory in the interest of an established ethnic group. The International Court of Justice has pronounced many times on disputes between States, but apparently it has no jurisdiction within an existing State. In Canada various ‘Indian tribes’ have been given the status ‘First Nation’, which is still a contested term and has little validity in a scientific sense. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the government had a ‘fiduciary duty’ to the ‘First Nations’ and that the aboriginal people had title ‘sui generis’. This maybe the best route to define and defend the ‘rights’ of an ethnic group, however, powerful commercial concerns, unfortunately, still make attempts to question the terms of this ruling.

Melvin, your response shows that I don't have a problem, rather it is those who 'discover' lands that are already known to it occupants that have the problem for thinking it was unknown in the first place :) . Really, the debate on who is Indigenous comes back to the issue of the interests of the colonisers and their desire to exploit other peoples lands and resources. Why else would there be such legal arguments (under colonisers or 'discoverers' laws) to determine who is or isn't Indigenous to the said hypothetical island. Surely the debate over ownership would lie between x and y, not the so called discoverer.

You identify the real issue facing First Nations peoples - that is that the colonisers continue to attempt to disprove any claim. When you look at societies that have, over centuries, blended to forge one peoples, such as the British Isles (although some would contest that), if someone were to 'discover' it and colonise it, the peoples of Great Britain would claim to be the Indigenous peoples I presume. No doubt the different 'tribes' such as the Welsh, Irish, Celts, English, etc would emerge as select peoples within the larger grouping of 'Indigenous'. As a collective they would no doubt consider themselves to be the colonised peoples who may still bicker about who was there first especially considering their long history of being colonised.

I agree with your suggestion that "We need to argue that proof of title should not be a requirement for the protection of territory in the interest of an established ethnic group". Many people would argue that the right of defining who is Indigenous remains with Indigenous peoples themselves. If there is disagreement between groups then that is their issue to resolve. If the colonising govt cannot tell the difference for the purpose of service delivery etc, then they should either support both groups, or assist the competing groups to come to an agreement.

Getting back to our conversation: What is the actual intention of asking the question in the first place? Is it to ease the conscience of researchers as they interpret their study through their own world view and seek build their academic careers by being experts on Indigenous peoples? Or, is it so that researchers may clam their conscience by working respectfully alongside Indigenous peoples in research?

However, I notice that my questions on this thread are skipped over in preference for more esoteric responses. So, once again I ask - does anyone on this thread identify themselves as an Indigenous person?

If this is going to be an academic discussion, then maybe we can cut the political correctness in order to do so. In short, if one has to be "indigenous" in order to be qualified to discuss the issue, is this not dividing people based on racial/ethnic categories? Is that a scholarly or a racist approach? As for Merlin, when did I or anyone else who is contributing here write something "as an excuse to mask the indigenousness of other Adivasi groups whose Indigenousness has been proven beyond doubt." I think I have suggested nothing at all like that. As scholars, we should try to understand not just the convenient and comfortable ways to approach a topic, but understand its myriad sides. "Indigenous" is not a category that is monolithic, even if some would like to think so. It is used by many people to mean many things. When Lorraine writes, she is referring to her understanding and experience in Australia. I accept that, but what she writes does not apply everywhere in the world. Let's don't pretend it does just because it is politically correct and makes some people comfortable. If this discussion is only going to be about making some people feel good, then I will leave it for those who are so inclined.

If you are suggesting that I believe that one has to be Indigenous in order to participate in a discussion on who is Indigenous then you are mistaken Ramadas. However, I do believe that people who enter into debate ought to be able to reflect on their own culture and ethnicity and discuss openly what they hope to gain out of the conversation.

I think it is safe for Philipp to assume that 'who is Indigenous' is an unresolved and contested issue. My issue with the question is what is the purpose behind the question and the quest for a definitive answer. You see, Colonisers and global citizens have a long history of using semantics and tricky words to swindle the original peoples of a place out of their lands and resources. Redefining the word Indigenous is a growing tactic, particularly amongst the academic classes of the world - so I believe that the intentions behind using Indigenous should be critically analyzed.

I relate most strongly to the everyday issues in Australia, but you do yourself a disservice if you assume that my understanding is limited to Australia. You see for Indigenous Australians it is considered a major wrongdoing to speak for anothers' country - so I dare not speak on behalf of other Indigenous peoples, except in a broad fashion. I was hoping that other posters, who identify as Indigenous, on this thread would join in the conversation.

From the lack of responses, I can only surmise that there is no-one else on this thread asking 'who is Indigenous', who identifies as Indigenous. How fascinating is that - perhaps this could become a topic worthy of research - why is it that non-Indigenous people make up the vast majority of commentators on the issue of who is Indigenous.

Merlin, I agree that internalised colonisation is a real problem for Indigenous peoples.

Well said, Lorraine, and perhaps the beginning of the answer to my earlier queries: "Why is it that non-Indigenous people make up the vast majority of commentators on the issue of who is Indigenous." ?

There appear to be two issues at play here, one scientific and the other political. I hope that we can agree that the scientific approach should not be affected by the race, nationality, status, religion etc., of the researcher or academic. Unfortunately it is the nature of science that various Disciplines define terms differently, this even occurs within a Discipline. The accepted convention is to clearly define terms early in any document. I see it as incumbent on the researcher to be as detached as possible from the politics that might be associated with any topic, but that is not to say a researcher cannot have a political opinion or promote a political opinion, just that it must be separated from the science. I agree it would be helpful when expressing a political opinion to learn the motivation of the writer or speaker, but it is not necessarily helpful to learn their pedigree. I believe an argument has to be won on its own merits.

The following may illustrate the wide nature and complexity of the problems facing indigenous peoples.

In 1956 a large part of the territory of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara tribes, known as the ‘Three Affiliated Tribes’, in the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation of North Dakota U.S.A. was ‘stolen’ to construct the Lake Sakakawea reservoir, which resulted in the reservation being split into four separate parts, almost resulting in the destruction of the tribes. Following research that suggested that substantial oil deposits lay under the reservation the tribes took the initiative to exploit the find and as a result the once impoverished people are now wealthy. It was the imposition of a reservation that gave the tribes legal title to a defined territory, which after several court battles enabled them to benefit from mineral exploitation.

In the Siberian State of Tuva, a member of the Russian Federation, the survival of the Todzhu ethnic group is under serious threat. These people, a now much reduced population, are considered to be the first people to domesticate reindeers and they migrate between winter and summer pastures. Recently the Tuvan Government gave a Chinese company permission to exploit the mineral resources of the summer pastures. The Todzhu have no title to the land, with its ill defined boundaries, in which they live. No-one has attempted to colonize their land. The constitution of the Russian Federation states in Article 69, “The Russian Federation shall guarantee the rights of the indigenous small peoples according to the universally recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties and agreements of the Russian Federation”. This sounds grand, but unfortunately economic pressures on Nation States leads them to exploit whatever resources they have to balance their books, often to the detriment of an ‘indigenous population. ‘Indigenous peoples need binding treaties to clearly define rights, including mineral exploitation and territory boundaries, to give them legal protection. In the case of the Todzhu I do not see them surviving beyond the next ten years without outside intervention in their support, indigenous or otherwise.

I recommend you read the a Study Guide ‘The Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ published by the University of Minnesota Human Rights Library. This can be found on www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumart/studyguides/indigenous.html

The United Nations’ ‘International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ has been signed by Australia, India, The Russian Federation and the United States, although as far as I am aware the ‘Covenant’ has not been ratified by the later. The Republic of China has not signed, but that’s no surprise. Despite the covenant’s fine wording abuses still go on, but is not the responsibility of the scientific community to pressure governments, that is a political act. However it is the responsibility of social scientists to carry out ‘unbiassed’ research and bring their findings to the attention of government, institutions and the public at large. Sorry this has been such a lengthy thesis for this site. The older one gets the more one is inclined to go on a bit.

I like the discussion on this topic and mostly I see word 'indigenous' as self identification for an ethnic group.

Fine Kamaljit, but could I suggest you add the word 'established' to give greater emphasis to the identity of the ethnic group. You may then, of course have to define your own interpretation of 'established' which I don't think will be too great a problem. The longer an ethnic group can claim to be established the stronger is their claim for self determination, territorial rights etc.,

Let me take the plunge and in the process add my two cents to this interesting discussion. I consider myself indigenous because my forebears named the territory in which my totem, and the totems related to it, both in cooperation and friction, have thrived. The resilience of place names, and of nomenclature attached to habitat and surroundings, including fauna, flora and geological formations, even in the face of re-naming campaigns by "guest" cultures, has reinforced the predecessory element that I believe is a key element to the definition of indegenousness.

The self-definition of "guest" cultures vis-a-vis the indigenous culture also contributes to the confirmation of the latter. This includes the stratagem of a "guest" culture projecting itself as a "civilizing" agent, thereby confirming itself to be a new and alien arrival in the habitat of a culture that has established itself strongly enough to be gratuitously insulted.

Indigenous peoples have nowhere else to go as a group. Non-indigenous groupings, on the other hand, tend to be easily exportable to their other homelands, usually quite distant from their adventure homes. In those primary homelands, they too can claim legitimately to be indigenous.

CORRECTION: The last word in the first paragraph of my submission should read "indigenousness".

Melvin and others question the need for researchers undertaking research on/with Indigenous cultures to identify their own culture, and political alliances when it comes to the Indigenous/non-Indigenous identity.

I can't see that this is a problem when most academically rigorous journals and research reporting expect authors to include a disclosure statement declaring any competing interests etc. Indeed many disciplines and journals insist on a disclosure statement.

Whether the issue of who is indigenous is examined from a political or scientific research lens is irrelevant - Research is a political process. Scientific research has been used to justify all manner of things - like smoking, funded by big tobacco, and asbestos mining, unauthorised experimentation on children, nuclear bombs etc. etc. etc.

Scientific investigation is not a valueless process, as each researcher takes their own values and political beliefs, their aspirations and the aspirations of the group they endorse. It is worth pointing out that value is placed on the non-Indigenous allies of Indigenous peoples who work alongside us respectfully, usually in the quest for social justice, depending on their political allegiances.

It is clear that research is political.

Therefore, I believe that:

A disclosure statement, outlining if the researcher considers themselves to be Indigenous; has any Indigenous links; seeks to be an ally based on ___ reasoning; or disbelieving of Indigeniety as an identity, is an ethical and moral requirement for those engaging in research with, or on, Indigenous peoples. An omission by researchers to outline their affiliations, intentions etc will automatically incur critical analysis of the research and researcher by Indigenous peoples and their allies.

So, Melvin, rather than there being two separate issues, it really comes down to the research being a political activity. This may not be the intention of a researcher, but it would be a fool who wasn't aware of the ways science has been used politically for centuries.

I meant to say

So, Melvin, rather than there being two separate issues, it really comes down to research being a political activity. This may not be the intention of a researcher, but it would be a fool who wasn't aware of the ways science has been used politically for centuries.

Even if I would not go as far as Lorraine, in -at least- one point, we are of the same opinion: research is always political. Therefore it is a political choice to understand a certain group with a certain concept. I tried to solve this problem by taking the definition of the indigenous movement itself. In Ecuador, they have developed a quite complex system of what and who is indigenous, including concepts such as people and nationality. Outside the context of the indigenous movement the -already discussed- pejorative background of the word indigenous (or "indio") will lead with great probability to a rejection of this word. So it would not be strange to talk to someone who says: "Yes, at home we speak Kichwa. But, no, we are not indigenous." So, not everyone who could be considered indigenous accepts the definitions of the indigenous movement.

The topic that most interests me is racism and exclusion. The concept of "the indigenous" was introduced -if we believe Quijano and Mignolo- in order to create a racialized social structure in the Americas - a structure that made colonization easier. Some indigenous movements were able to elaborate this idea -of course not taken from Quijano or Mignolo but their everyday experience- and build up a complex discourse that offers an alternative way of "doing" society and state. Maybe some of you had similar experiences...

Thank you Philipp for outlining your interest in defining who is Indigenous.

Indigenous is a contested term, and many Indigenous peoples reject or hate the word as it is associated with colonisation. In Australia most prefer Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, Koori, Murri, Noonga etc, or tribal names such as Yorta Yorta, Nwagi etc. However, Indigenous is still commonly used in a negative sense to classify the original peoples of Australia as a collective group identity. Without the untied name of Indigenous, small tribal groups are easier to pick off and intimidate. I would much prefer to use First Nations, or another name, to describe the collective original inhabitants but that is yet to eventuate.

Oddly, there is an increase in non-Indigenous people (often academics) who use semantics to lay claim to being Indigenous. I see this as an attempt to undermine any legitimacy of Indigenous peoples as the original inhabitants. Just as other peoples have taken the nasty names ascribed to them by majority culture, such as many Italian immigrants now use the once negative word 'Wog' to describe themselves, as a way of taking the sting of the slur out of the equation.

The appropriation of the word Indigenous by academics and others is very selective. Those living in the upper class suburbs of our cities would never claim that they live in an Indigenous community. If the police are looking for an Indigenous person, these same appropriating folk would never think that the police might mean them.

The name Indigenous was given by the colonisers and now they want to reclaim/renegotiate meaning/abolish the word because it suits their interests. So I tend to challenge the intentions of people trying to define it, as you would have noticed from my earlier posts.

I suppose my comments do relate to your research, however I believe that if you were to reflect on why you, as researcher, do/do not identify as Indigenous it would give you insight into your research topic. I wonder if you, or others, have ever taken the time to examine your own culture with the same level of inquiry, or questions, that you apply to research into Indigenous peoples.

Currently I am researching non-Indigenous mainstream Australian culture, from an Indigenous perspective (as a 2nd PhD). I doubt if this project would have been taken seriously if I did not already have a doctorate and a PhD research is less likely to come under pressure from funding bodies to achieve a specific result.

From the completed interviews, with highly articulate professionals and academics, it is a fascinating and diverse culture with many commonalities. A point of interest is the number of non-Indigenous mainstream Australians who consider themselves to be 'expert' on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who, once they receive the list of conversation promoting questions, do not proceed with making time for an interview. (In the interest of full disclosure etc these are provided on inquiry so as to avoid feelings of entrapment - this is fully informed consent.with no surprise questions).

One thing I am sure about is that issues of identity are complex. Even amongst my current research focus cohort, identifying as non-Indigenous mainstream Australian is a complex issue. Their first response tends to be that this is the group that they are positioned in, but then come the different layers of identity. Overwhelming though, this group acknowledges that they would be identified as, and accepted by, non-Indigenous mainstream Australian.

Thank you Lorraine, I understand your point better now. I think your research seems quite interesting and important.

Nevertheless, I guess you will acknowledge that most research cannot get so deep into the issue of ethnic labeling - especially if it is, like mine, not anthropological. So at times is is necessary to look "from the outside" on the concept `indigenous´. And this leads -necessarily, I would say- to reductions and abstractions that can do harm to certain groups. So, I am really interested if there are "short-definitions" of the term indigenous that achieve a combination of the colonial and racist aspects and the self-definition of indigenous peoples. Some came up already, nevertheless, they don't really fit the Ecuadorean case...

Indigenous is traceable historically to say to a minimum of 5 generations, is known by a population aggregated by gender,family, clan and tribe. More often indigenous lines of origin and heritage are not an essential part of the formal system of documentation. Nor is indigenous knowledge of technology of diverse indigenous sciences documented in a manner that makes them useful to present and future generations. I believe the whole issue of indigenous things, thoughts and processes seem to me to be in dis-array in our current perceptions of its potential utility to present day knowledge systems.

Yes, to that Monica -- rather than helping to present a question in ordered terms, I would say that the category 'indigenous' currently causes disarray, primarily because it is a false yet necessary term in which a political category is conflated with an historical social reality.

It is a term dissonant with contemporary thought insomuch as it keeps alive the notion of 'blood' within a political topography. In Australia the debate continues over how much 'blood' one needs in order to claim indigeneity. The charge is that people with minimal indigenous 'blood' claim indigeneity opportunistically for political purposes.

I would suggest that the term indigenous is inherently political, that the political move has already been made in colonisation by the marginalisation/eradication of sub-national identity groups. This is why, regardless of 'blood' content any claim to indigeneity is political, to be indigenous is political. But where is this politics placed? It is a political stand between the marginalised/eradicated identity group and the hegemonous colonial culture.

But I think that the choice between indigenous culture and the hegemonous (largely European) culture is a false one. To offer one, the other, or both, is a polite liberal gesture which fails to grasp the psychical function of colonisation which Franz Fanon described so well. The offer of a return to culture is a disguised act of exclusion; the offer of inclusion is fraught on many levels. Like Fanon, I think that unfortunately the problem can/will only be dealt with by the colonised.

To cut a psychoanalytical interpretation uncharacteristically short, I think that the transition from a particularistic cultural group to the 'mainstream culture' while retaining an originary culture, and equally the return to a particularistic culture while retaining the universality of citizenship, is problematic because the effect of the signifier 'indigenous' remains in play (at an intersubjective and intrasubjective level in the nationalisation of sub-national groups) leading variously to exclusion, diminution, stasis and anachronism.

I suggest that, with these problems in mind, the reinvigoration of particularistic (historical) identity can only be achieved via the reification of the false identity imposed in colonisation, that aboriginal cultures first need to 'traverse the fantasy' of indigeneity (their false nationalisation). That is, they need to make real/meaningful the false category 'indigenous' before they can occupy the paradoxical position of particularity within the universality of a liberal democracy.

Please note that I don't mean to tell aboriginal Australians what they should do -- when I say 'they need', I mean that the psychical position in which they are placed compells some strategy. In fact, I reached this conclusion by observing what Indigenous Australians are already putting in place, observing that through national programs, through legal negotions, through Indigenous radio and television, that a national Indigenous identity is being reified and that this is capable of enlivening particularistic culture. Without elaborating the reading of Lacanian psychoanalysis which leads me to suspect this mechanism, I want to suggest that it is only by living through the false, imposed, racialised fantasy of generic indigeneity that Indigeneity becomes a meaningful, non-anachronistic, non-static identity -- in short, to quote Lacan: the truth emerges from a lie.

Fredrika, you state the obvious. It really is a matter of manners and protocol. If you want to know more detail about myself, and I am presuming Jonathan, then you can expect to be asked something like the following questions.

-Who is it that is asking? (identify yourself in a way that is relevant to the following).

-Why is it that you want to know?

-What will you do with any information I give you? (will you be likely to use it against me and mine)

-How can I know that your intentions are good?

But most important

- Why should I have to justify myself to you?

It is all just a matter of courtesy and good manners.

Frederika's reference to "implication, assumption, value and belief" offer a delicious irony: the reference is itself a subjective inference, a value judgment informed by a belief system. We all know that sterile research is an implausible fiction; an intellectual parsimony that eliminates the thinker in the name of the thought will proceed to whittle away the thought in the names of the skeletal elements that underlie it, and thereafter proceed in the same fashion. I believe Frederika did not read the post that enquired whether anyone in the conversation considered themselves to be indigenous-a question posed in the context of a quest for a definition of the term, not for specific addresses. I tend to share Lorraine's surprise at Frederika's unique turn of phrase, which seems to deflect the conversation towards considerations that are surplus to the matter in hand.

Jonathan, this is true, but where does it take us except around in circles? Isn't it also the case that 'we all know' that the end of objectivity also spells the end of any fixed point onto which the subject can secure their identity? Isn't the question of identity -- who are you? -- offensive because it not only demands an impossible objectivity but because it exposes an impossible subjectivity? The trueful response to this question is 'I don't know who I am.' The correct political Lacanian response is Lorraine's 'why should I have to justify myself to you?' because, read through psychoanalysis, it reveals the universal subjective plight of existence between the cracks in a significatory network. That is, that my identity is merely what someone else tells me it is. An Indigenous Australian knows this in a double sense: firstly as a human being; secondly as someone whose particularistic identity has been negated through its universalisation under the banner 'indigenous.'

The political irony of Lorraine's 'Indigenous perspective' is that such a perspective is precisely the fiction under which the particularity of aboriginal culture was buried alive. Yet, as I earlier opined, this is precisely the process which must be 'worked through' for Indigenous Australians to come to peace with the society which dreamed of their death. Unfortunately, the current situation is that Aboriginal Australians is being held responsible for the failings of the imposed term 'Indigenous' (Andrew Bolt, Anthony Mundine, and see Lorraine's comment above about 'semantics'). I don't think this helps. Rather than contest illegitimate uses of the term, it should be made clear that the term is entirely false, imposed by settlement etc.

This is why I fix the particularity of identity to our universal human experience as 'subjects under the signifier' and avoid using the 'impossibility of objectivity' to reintroduce subjectivity -- a subject with a 'real' identity -- by the backdoor. Best...J

Jonas, I find this avenue stimulating. The question we face is: shall we examine the maze with us outside it, which would be safe but perhaps not so enlightening, or risk being trapped in it, which could make us participant authorities who might not escape to tell the tale? Another, more direct question is: is it, or has it been, possible for the intended victim of the term "indigenous" to "colonise" it through self-affirming usage, leading to outcomes that can be assessed objectively? Can we not in this way fix a point-or plot a few points-in the circle in which we are being taken around? I am keen to know your thoughts on this. Much respect...JW

Jonas, you may believe that Australian Aboriginals (you omit Torres Strait Islanders) identity has been buried alive, but I think that you do not realise that it is still functioning very well. Just because non-Indigenous Australians are not privy to it does not mean it is not there and that it is not thriving.

Like Jonathan suggests, the term Indigenous is being used as a pan Australian term for the original peoples of Australia - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. In many cases, although grudgingly, it is being 'colonised' or reinterpreted to become a self-affirming unifying short hand for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, just as Aboriginal is accepted as a broad term for the many nations of Aboriginal people in Australia. Indigenous is also more inclusive. Indigenous also is affirming because it can act to shut down the often strident demand by many non-Indigenous people for specific details on identity - as if it is their 'right' as members of the non-Indigenous mainstream society.

Your suggestion that the term Indigenous should be dismantled actually feeds into the notion of ensuring the annihilation of first nations people's identity - it would be part of the final phase of assimilation and cultural genocide. It would be a successful outcome for the society which dreamed of their death.

Day after day this issue of 'indigenous' has been proving to be a much debatable in my country Nepal too. Defining who is indigenous and who is not has been a much critical issue now and more significantly it was one of the most trickier issues which had led to the demise of constituent assembly last year.

Hi Jonathon (and Lorraine), I really do appreciate your comments. Your questions cut straight to the paradoxical heart of the dilemma. But I believe a little more work is necessary for me to explain my thinking and a little more of your patience.

There is a belief that a word can be reclaimed. With respect, I disagree. The reason is that the word in itself is insignificant. Franz Fanon uses 'black' as this pejorative (c.f. Black skin white masks). We could equally use 'colonised', which would include the Irish. But this wouldn't -- as commenters have mentioned -- include other indigenous groups. Certainly, each must address their own situation, but I suggest this can't be done simply by reclaiming the pejorative. White or 'multicultural' Australia doesn't even know the pejorative nature of the word, and it is to this milieu that the conversation is addressed. What needs to be addressed, from my position, is not the word but the psychological effect. Indigenous, Aboriginal, First Nation: whatever word is adopted, these effects remain. Fanon does much to elucidate these effects.

Let's consider two paths: Indigenous studies which will inculcate an indigenous identity but at the risk of self-exclusion from broader society, and 'world studies' which might produce an indigenous thinker capable of answering these questions for us, but at the risk of losing 'indigeneity'. The question which arises is: what does one fear losing but the negative effects of blackness/colonisation/marginalisation? If this is a valid question, it suggests that indigeneity is a symptom of marginalisation carried by the indigenous subject, not a positive identity. Fanon elaborates this by demonstrating how this symptom functions for the coloniser: learn French, but you will always speak French well for a black man; undertake a French education, but mention Plato and you will find that this is proprietorial European knowledge, and disallowed. Nonetheless, I feel that it is on this field that the battle is being fought most effectively. Through studies such as Lorraine's which use white knowledge forms to investigate white knowledge, through law, through Indigenous humour which so often cuts through to the white blindness, and through national Indigenous radio like 98.9fm. I see these programs working, not because they present the Indigenous subject in the specificity of their identity, but because they present the Indigenous subject as a human subject. And thus they attack the primary effect of marginalisation, which is to dehumanise the subject, reducing them to a limited group of features such as skin colour or a certain kind of hat.

Forgive another long post. I do hope it makes sense. Best ...Jonas

Hi Lorraine, I hope my reply above clears up what I failed to make clear before. Thanks for your comments and including me in a conversation which, by rights, deals with a problematic beyond me. I hope to be sensitive to the dilemma of indigenous identity and can only approach it from the perspective of the dilemma of identity in which all humans find themselves -- caught between a meaningless universality and an illusive particularity. I would love to hear more of your proposed 2nd PhD -- sounds interesting. It might be hell funny too.

I hope I didn't misrepresent it in the comment above. My point there is that it is by requisitioning white knowledge systems and exploring white culture that the Indigenous assert themselves in the white arena as firstly human beings. As much as I am suspicious of his economic liberalism, I think that Noel Pearson functions in this way -- but I think even he is marginalised in his particularity as speaking for Cape York. This said, White Australia is always demanding the wrong thing. They ask for someone to represent all Indigenous Australia. They don't ask for an Indigenous Australian to speak with wisdom as a human being. Do you think that's fair to say? Best... Jonas

Amrit, could you tell us something of the discussion in Nepal?

"Indigenous" does seem to be a loaded term, but does it have to be considered as a contrast between one group with respect to another? I suspect our species has been migratory since its beginning. One might ask The Hopi or Zuni Indians of New Mexico and Arizona if they consider the Navajo or Apache to be indigenous. Or are Visagoths more indigenous to Spain than those of Moorish heritage, or the Celtiberians? I suspect it is important to know, from the "indigenous" perspective, why the identity is important to them, and who do they consider to share that status? Likewise from the perspective of the "other," what is their concern or attitude toward the indigenous--is it merely recognition, or is it paternalistic or patronizing, or is it discriminatory, or is it something else?

Our "identity" is important to each of us, and may be central to our sense of community. Who do we feel connected to, and who do we include as connected to us even if we do not know them personally? This sense of community has numerous levels or strands--geographic, cultural, genetic, spiritual (religion/church), occupational, social, and for some may include "nativistic" or "indigenous" character. To the extent it determines our sense of "belonging" it is something to be valued as a basic right and something essential to our existence. To the extent that it is "exclusionary," there we have to be mindful of the risks in expressing that exclusion.

Jonas, if you would like to know more about my current 2nd PhD research into non-Indigenous mainstream Australian culture, I am sure google will show up a contact email for me. I have almost completed the interviews and they have been informative to say the least.

One fascinating observation is that while the use Indigenous is ok, many people object to being referred to as non-Indigenous and or mainstream.

In regards to requisitioning knowledge, it is intriguing that amongst the academic class Indigenous knowledge can often only be considered to have value if it has been requisitioned or appropriated, translated and presented by non-Indigenous people who pose as 'experts' on Indigenous knowledge. That is, Indigenous knowledge is not real until a non-Indigenous person can claim it and exploit it.

Thomas, one clarification, in Australia at least, spirituality is not the same as religion or church. The 2 notions can be combined but mostly they are understood as 2 different concepts. One can be rich in spirituality and not belong to any church or religion.

Lorraine, I was thinking more like "Spiritual (religion/church)' as meaning "spiritual or religion or church" and could also add "or philosophical." There are certainly many other types of non-religious "spirituality" and even non-spiritual philosophical approached to ethics.

And identification with religion or church does not mean the individual is seeing this as an ethical or spiritual identification. When someone self-identifies as being a part of a "church" community, they might do that because of shared beliefs, but not everyone will be so "thoughtful" in this process [One can belong to a church or religion but not be rich in spirituality]. Also some may sense belonging to a particular "parish" or "congregation" but not extend that sense of community to the "denomination." Other may sense a belonging to the larger organization, with no specific loyalty or bonding with members of a local congregation.

Communities or groups seem to be very nebulous constructs, and one member's perception of what ties them to a community is not necessarily the same as another's.

As a TA for a course on "Colonialism and Indigenous Peoples," I recently led a very interesting class discussion on this theme with 90 students, roughly half of whom might identify as indigenous. They began with the assumption that the answer to this question was simple, and the intense discussion the ensued showed that it was not quite so simple. In the end, I suggested that we have to distinguish between 'capital-I' Indigenous (an identity that people adopt for various reasons) and the adjective 'indigenous.' The two are linked of course, but it is most important to define who or what can be described as 'indigenous.' Ultimately, I would suggest that indigeneity is relative. It refers to relationship to a specific territory and relationship to others who share in that connection to the land. It is relative to newcomers. Thus, "Québécois" with 400 hundred years of relationship with New France/Quebec might claim indigeneity vis-à-vis English 'newcomers' in Quebec, which is effectively what they did in the 1960s with the "Maîtres chez nous" (masters in our own house) slogan and nationalist campaign. Yet part of this campaign included the nationalisation of hydro-electricity and the building of massive new projects in northern 'Quebec' or 'Nouveau Quebec.' This territory was essentially James Bay Cree territory that very few Frenchmen had even visited let alone lived in until the mid-twentieth century. The Cree claimed indigenous rights vis-à-vis the Quebecers, and rightly so. Indigeneity is relative. One can have a deep relationship with the land, but there may be others who have a prior and deeper relationships with that same land. The Cree in Cree territory is indigenous, but if he settles in England, he is still Cree, but not indigenous (to England). This is not to say he does not retain a strong relationship to his home territory. Likewise, the 17th century English settler to North America retained a strong relationship with his home country (so much so that he often tried to recreate it in North America), while becoming very much a newcomer in North America. In the end, indigeneity, as others have pointed out, becomes particularly relevant and is perhaps adopted as an identity, primarily because of a threat to the rights and responsibilities that flow from one's prior relationship to a specific territory and to others who share in that relationship. "indigenous rights" therefore are not so much special rights as rights that require special attention, because newcomers are not respecting them. This is why I wrote an op-ed on indigenous rights last summer and gave it the title: "Why Not Extend Aboriginal Rights to Aboriginal People?" http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2012/08/08/why_not_extend_aboriginal_rights_to_aboriginal_peoples.html

Another key point to consider is that "individuals" and "communities" are abstractions from reality. What is real are "persons-in-relationship." There are multiple ways of being in relationship to people and to a territory, which means there are multiple ways of being indigenous.

I have not previously contributed to this discussion, but have been following it with great interest. I cannot contribute to this discussion with any great scholarly wisdom, rhetoric or pedagogy as has been previously written. I propose is to contribute a very personal view. I identify as aboriginal. I actually dislike the fact that we have gone to referring to aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as indigenous.

As an urban aboriginal fella born to mixed race parentage I have often been asked y I identify as aboriginal, over British or even Australian. Simple answer is I do identify as Australian, FIRST Australian. I am not a rage carrying, tent embassy sorta guy. However, I do proudly have "Aboriginal Australia" registration plates on my car, and do identify. What does this have to do with this discussion. It personalises it, makes it subjective if you wish.

As one of my twitter peeps has said when I shared this discussion there: "indigeneity has nothing to do with race/colour, & everything to do with cultural/spiritual connection to homeland" or country in aboriginal speak.

Thanks for the discussion and apologies for not being more high brow.

A very respected indigenous author in Australia is Anita Heiss. Just last year she published her latest book entitled "Am I black enough for you?" I have the publishers link if anybody would like it.

Glen, you are high brow enough for me. I don't tend to use complicated words when simple straight talking is clear and concise.

I personally don't like the word Indigenous, but from what I am reading there are a lot of academics and others who are trying to used the word in such a way that will make the original people, Indigenous peoples internationally as well as in Australia, disappear as a group. These people who like to redefine indigenous, with either a capital I or lower case i, are unlikely to consider themselves living in an Indigenous community. We all know that in Australia an Indigenous community means a community that is predominantly Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

I was talking with Jonas on the phone yesterday and pointed out that despite my leading posts it is only Indigenous people who have identified on this thread. This reinforces the impression I get from my study and observation that non-Indigenous people seem to think they are the norm. Much like a 2 year old thinks that they are the centre of the universe and everything orbits around them and their needs.

This norm that puts their culture as the one by which 'Indigenous' and all others orbit devalues their thinking, to my mind. It is like there is no context, no relationship, no connectedness and no reflection on why or where they position themselves in relation to others.

So, I ask, why is it that non-Indigenous people don't see the need to identify themselves or their relationship with Indigenous people?

Hi Lorraine, I am troubled by a comment you've made a couple of times -- troubled because I am implicated in the criticism, but also because I don't yet understand what you mean. You say:

"from what I am reading there are a lot of academics and others who are trying to used the word in such a way that will make the original people, Indigenous peoples internationally as well as in Australia, disappear as a group."

Could you say a little more about this please?

Jonas,

When academics use semantics to claim that they too are indigenous, either I or i, they are by default saying that Indigenous peoples, who have long born the negatives associated with being classified as Indigenous, are no different from them. When non-Indigenous academics claim the Indigenous voice, citing things such as long term residency or being born in a place, it acts to disenfranchise Indigenous voices and also any claims of prior ownership etc.

The claiming of being indigenous via semantics, and selective use of select sections of dictionaries, positions indigeniety as part of milieu - part of the general mainstream public (Look up the United Nations definition, it is pretty clear.) It devalues any recognition of the bastardry of colonisation, its long term and continuing effects. It is saying that everyone is equal - while of course some are more equal than others.

One such academic paper I read positioned a person who was Indigenous to another continent claiming to be Indigenous because of long term residency. Using notions of long term residency and birthplace would mean that the many British of African heritage going back 400+ years could claim to be Indigenous British people! It is worth reading Linda Smith's book on decolonisation.

If such claims to being Indigenous remain unchallenged the collective banner of Indigenous used by Indigenous peoples internationally would cease to be relevant. Using Australia as an example, if Indigenous was devalued then people would use Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander until that is also challenged as it has been in the past. This would then mean people identifying as specific state (like Koori or Murri) or 'tribal' names until that too is challenged as it has been in the past. Genetics has also been tried to negate claims to Indigenousness.

Ultimately this argument all lead to the ultimate of colonisation - the disappearance of Indigenous peoples as a discrete group. Just look at England for an example where the Celts, Picts, Angles, Saxons, Romans etc have been homogenised to give the illusion of being one particular ethnicity. Of course there are many other examples around the world, but in the recently colonised countries like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, America etc. the original peoples have retained their identity and claim to being Indigenous.

This is why it is relevant to ask - who is asking and why - because the question is a loaded one. The question is often posed with a colonisation intent.

I hope this helps.

Hi Lorraine. Thanks for your reply. I'm gobsmacked! I have never heard/read anyone claim indigeneity on this basis, and never expected to -- at least not in academia. This is what happens when you let the positivists loose ;-(

This is indeed an interesting discussion. I have recently published an article titled Anthropology and the Politics of Indigeneity in Anthropological Forum and one of the key contentions I make is that the concept of Indigeneity becomes problematic when it is detached from an inherent feature of Indigenousness ie marginality.

Just a thought - does the finding of a North African man in Ipswich, England, from the 1300s http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1275339/He-African-strong-jaw-bad--So-doing-Ipswich-year-1190.html#axzz2Kap0bJ5I mean that African British can claim to be Indigenous to Britain?

The politics of indigeneity should not preclude researchers from using a term that has other perfectly legitimate uses. Wikipedia may serve as an example of groups coopting a term for their own purposes, defining indigenous as ethnic minorities marginalized as their territories become part of a state. In my archaeological work I have encountered houses within a community that were apparently occupied by continuously by an "indigenous" population for a millennium, while during the final 200-300 years a city grew around them and came to dominate a large swath of Guatemala. The question of whether the city was founded by an external group coming in and "marginalizing" the indigenous population, or was founded by an elite group developing out of this indigenous population remains unanswered. But it is difficult to find a term, other than indigenous, to describe the occupants of these houses.

Hi Thomas. It's true that the word indigenous is apt to diverse usages, and frustrating that each of these usages will also fail to include some essential element. Your Guatemalan example sounds interesting and I'd like to hear more about how the word 'indigenous' functions for you there to explicate some essential feature. I see already that you've placed it within a struggle for power.

As an Australian, the word 'indigenous' must be read in a post-colonial sense as a marker of the exclusion, erasure and drive to homogeneity that accompanies the inclusiveness and diversification of the colonial, liberal and capitalist projects. (Another way to say that marginalisation is essential to any definition of the word). I think that it is most useful when used within a framework of power relations, and especially valuable in denoting current power relations. This might include colonialism and imperialism in the strong sense of those words, but I also think there is some benefit from its use to describe the tensions between ethnic groups with the spread of industrialisation in China, for example -- how does a group retain identity in the modern world without becoming a museum piece?

There is a self-centred or 'universalist' element to my usage insomuch this desire for identity, this tension with homogeneity, has its homology in every subject. That is, we are not all indigenous but we hold indigeneity as a metaphor of self. In this sense, I / we must confess that (e.g.black) indigeneity is an (e.g. white) fantasy, and ultimately have to face that this is a fantasy of my / our own making. (And that this fantasy underscores the reappropriation of the word to the anti-immigrationist and racist discourse in Europe, for example -- a warning that marginalisation, while essential, is not the pivot point of the term).

Do any of these thoughts intersect or conflict with your own?

Jonas, I appreciate your explanation of your perspective. In the U.S the power relations are very complex. American Indian who live on reservations may experience severe economic hardships, especially for those in isolated and underpopulated areas; and also face racial animosity from their non-Indian neighbors. I am more familiar with this from a health care perspective. On the other hand, where there are Indian-owned casinos, there has been criticism of people with only a marginal or questionable claim to being indigenous asserting this claim so as to share in the casino profits. In academic institutions, a claim to indigenous status may also be of value, and in our recent elections, the woman who was elected to a Senate seat from Massachusetts had earlier asserted Indian heritage that may have been of either very limited, or of questionable pedigree. The argumen was made, but not proven, that by claiming this heritage she became more competitive for an appointment to a professorship at the Harvard law school.

In Guatemala I was faced with two issues.

1.) The traditional interpretation of the pre-Conquest history of the K'iche' (or Quiche) Maya is that a small group of Mayan warrior/traders left the eastern coast of Mexico and migrated to the western Highlands of Guatemala in the 13th Century, and eventually became the ruling class--that these traders were not K'iche" but adopted their language and came to rule over the "indigenous" population. There are other interpretations of the history but this is the standard version. The Spanish came in the 16th Century.

2.) The development of Mayan languages is also complex, with the standard version of origination in southern Mexico, with the K'iche' language gradually developing as the earlier stages migrated a circuitous route, going east and southeast, then south, and finally moving west to the current location, and being present in the Quiche Basin of the western Highlands by the 15th Century.

The problem with my archaeological findings is that the ruling center (their city) of the K'iche' included an area of palaces and temples (the ruling elite), a second high status area, and a large "commoner" area. The 3rd area would presumably be that of the "indigenous" K'iche' who were ruled by the presumably "foriegn" elite. The archaeological evidence provides dates for two of the commoner houses. Both were occupied right up until the Spanish Conquest, but the dates show one to have been in use for 1,000 years, and the other for 700 years. It would confirm these were "indigenous" to the area, which would not have any real effect on the interpretation of political developments. But it raises concern relative to the linguistic model.

Hello All,

This will be my first comment in this discussion. I believe that there are a few points that are coming together to form a really true idea about the word ‘indigenous ‘.

First, the qualifier for the word for the word is important and time as a factor may or may not be adequate. The North African in Ipswich is a perfect example. If we look far enough back then who is truly indigenous to a great many parts of the world, and certainly America. Then there are groups who have moved in on territory in a given region like the case of the K'iche of Guatemala, and this is also played out in Korea, China and many other places. When is far enough back to be considered ‘indigenous’? I for one being a Canadian have a problem because my family was not born in Britain but in Canada and the generations go back to the 1700s as far as I have been able to go. I have no ties to Britain nor does most of my family only my father’s mother could be a viable tie. That being said a person in Canada with 16th native blood can take advantage of rights for indigenous people. The divisive nature of who came first in our modern world (indigenous) causes fractures in identity because except for our birth place we know no other cultural home, but for those who are original the prospect of being removed from what you thought was your land generally alienates them from their place.

Second, the idea that Alison had was true ‘I find it interesting that discussions of potentially indigenous cultures lose animosity when earlier European populations are also considered.’ That to my mind at least is because for people who feel no connection to a colonising power, but to their colonial home they wish to be part of the group of people from here. No one wants to be the other or the perceived other. Social cohesion is about people believing they have a commonality with those around them. Koreans believe that they are descendants of a long pure history, but as Bruce Cummings points out in his book Korea's place in the sun the Mongols, Chinese, Persians, Arabs, Japanese, and the odd European landed on the shores of the peninsula for a time and to believe that on no occasion was there any mixing of the blood lines is really a long shot. That being said does it mean that there are more Korean people and less Korean people? Is an immigrant always an immigrant? We must look at a way of giving voice to marginalized groups that do not affect the same visceral torsion to society. In Canada there are a great many native groups and they need to be heard, but I find that when they are placed as an ‘other’ or when we make them an ‘other’ we have the potential for conflict. As well when immigrants come to a new country (say A-landers immigrating to to B-land) their children start acting like people from that country (B-land), and after a generation or two they very often are only A-landers in name and maybe few token holidays. The process of assimilation and socialisation teach them to walk talk and act like someone from their new home. Do these people hold a true claim to a culture they no longer truly know? Do European settler descendants hold some claim to rights of their homes? If so then there are people walking around with 4 or 5 indigenous homelands. For example, a man of mixed heritage could claim Scottish and Irish on the mother’s side and Indian and Chinese on the Father’s side.

This is just a though because we do not really have a good definition of it, and if we go to hard-line then even indigenous people start to no longer be indigenous. With that in mind I would close by saying that people are people and should not be marginalized on any basis.

Nathaniel,

I don't believe that when the colonisers arrived in Canada, or Australia, they or their children started acting like the original inhabitants. The opposite is try as the colonisers tried, in many ways, to make the original inhabitants more like them, either through assimilation or cultural genocide. The colonisers tried all sorts of dirty tricks to force the original peoples' to "walk, talk and act like them - the newcomers.

For some reason, the identity and culture of Indigenous cultures around the globe continue to identified as different from the coloniser's 'mainstream' culture. I was told by a wise person once that 'you identify with who you feel safe with'. The historical, and present day, treatment of Indigenous peoples by the coloniser society (mainstream, non-indigenous, or however you choose to identify them) has not eradicated people identifying as Indigenous.

Before you relate all the perceived benefits of Indigeniety, let me assure you the negatives far outweigh any benefits. To give you an example, yesterday I phoned a real estate agent about a house for sale and he launched into a very racists analysis of the suburb the house was in. He assured me that we would need a dog to keep the blackfellas (plus worse derogatory descriptors of Aboriginal people) out of the yard. He waffled on and on. The look on his face was classic when we went to inspect the property. This is hardly a benefit of being Indigenous.

Out of curiosity, have you been following the Idle No More movement in Canada?

I am pleased you like the reference to the African British man's archaic remains so I thought you might find the following link very thought provoking.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430944.stm

'First Americans were Australian'

What is indigenous? It seems that the question has been enclosed between: 1. colonialism and 2. political ideologies of "indigenism and indianism".

True! colonialism and indigenism ideology are real issues for a large number of societies, but may not entirely apply to European, Middle east and a handfull of others numerically important societies, where territoriality-language-history and religion form an interrelated system that has been able to survive to this day and is now determining both politics and ideology (also often rewriting history).

In this respect - [for example's sake] - a couple of societies claiming Celtic origins, Albanians in the Balkans, the Walscher in the Alps, Maronites, Druzes and perhaps Koreans, to only mention six or seven cases, do claim indigenuity and the right to be at home.

There are reasons to suspect that some similar "meta-colonial" ideological undercurrents are working in the Sahel region where, ideological references of being indigenous tends to go a long way back into history, especially since written history has emerged as a new element in shaping identity, religious ideologies and political activism.

The issue of what is indigenous and what this involves for politics, is also vigorously emerging in European countries (Estonia and Hundary are good cases).

Some of the questions relating to these issues are dealt with in

Aligisakis M. and Dascalopoulos S. (eds) Multiculturalismes et Identités en Europe, University of Geneva, Academia, 2012 , isbn 978-2-8061-0042-9.

And, please, when dealing with this important question do not underestimate the demographic evolution that is rapidly increasing the number of previously small and marginal societies or groups, that have grown from tenths of thousands to hundred of thousands and often have now reached more than a million.

Dr. Nicolas Vernicos

Prof. Emeritus University of the Aegean (Greece)

Well, we have a problem if we look cultural identity trough the glass of marginality. It´s too difficult to understand indigenous cultures reducing them to the colonialist point of view. This is a common bias and its effect is the misunderstanding of the study object.

Hi Victor and Nicolas.

It seems you are both pointing to a problem of definition or categorisation: what, precisely does Indigenous mean and to what does it entitle the bearer?

It is inarguably, then, a political and ideological debate. To begin by defining terms will not bring clarity, but obscure the particular struggles of peoples claiming Indigeneity under a veil of universality, a universally applicable designation of the term Indigenous.

I can only speak for my perceptions of the Australian case, and understand that these observations might be far removed from your own study. In Australia, if we remove 'marginality' and 'colonialism' from the equation we further obscure its local meaning. It is true that when we predicate Indigeneity on colonialism we reduce cultures to a 'colonialist point of view'. But it is firstly colonisation which reduces everything to its point of view. Moreover, politically, the liberal notions of equality and universality have not rescinded colonialism, but obscured it. And because of this, the discussion must begin in this very paradox: Indigeity is NOT colonialist, but we cannot speak of Indigeneity sensibly without speaking of colonialism.

This is the central symbolic/psychical dilemma for Indigenous Australians: to accept a conference with a government minister is to reify the position of that government and the discourse which surrounds it; to accept the incentives offered reinforces the mytholgy of the Indigenous seeker; to proclaim Indigeneity is to acknowledge in some form one's colonisation and to relive that trauma. This is what Indigenous Australians negotiate daily. (See Nathaniel's candid post which demonstrates the kind of qualifications which an identification as Indigenous forces one to make (roughly: "I am this, but not that, and one should not assume..." Thanks, Nathaniel).

As a white Australian, I don't understand Indigeneity and don't expect to. That is not what this is about. It is about the possibility of hearing Indigenous voices. Not 'voice' as would be implied by a single definition of indigeneity, but voices -- a Babel of voices, most likely. Understanding does not happen immediately, if at all. Ethically, we must first be willing to pass through an inderterminate period of misunderstanding. It is about the right to misunderstand and be misunderstood with impunity. We must be open to our own inability to understand one another. To this end, although it creates a difficult but not insuperable obstacle to one's academic pursuits, definitional parsimony is simply that: parsimony.

Frederika,

the real estate agent wasn't reacting to my Indigeniety, but the message in his statement and assumption that as I was looking a buying a house I was not Indigenous, is very indicative of the level of racism that is overtly expressed by non-Indigenous people.

Think for a moment,what kind of cultural norms are present if the salesman feels comfortable saying something so overtly racist (and I edited the conversation for brevity) to an unseen stranger.

The level of overt and covert racism enacted towards Indigenous peoples by the coloniser /settler society is lifelong and so insidious that any perceived benefits of identifying as Indigenous comes at a tremendous cost. I don't believe that it is taken lightly.

Lorraine,

I know that being counted as indigenous in America or Australia is like making yourself a second class citizen in your own lands. The point I was making was that in our society at what point does someone become part of that group. Is it a time based condition that after say 10, 100, 1000 years you pass from being from ‘there’ and become from ‘here’? I have had an issue with it as an idea because if it is time based then at some point the indigenous of Australia or America and indeed many other places came from ‘there’ and were foreigners in a new land. Granted they may or may not have been an invader as there was in all probability nothing to invade.

Now, I am in accord with you on the project of the church in many cases to ‘civilize’ these peoples. Though I can say from my experience with many different cultures living in Canada the children of immigrants to Canada very quickly become integrated in to Canadian society. Though, if we follow as thought experiment as follows: a couple from China come to Canada, and have a child say an 8 years old girl. Their child grows up in this new place and in many cases dates people of different backgrounds. Now we will say she falls in love with a man who is Congolese, Belgian, and Algonquin ( native Canadian group considered to be indigenous ). This couple marry and the child will further integrate into society, but the child is more from ‘there’ than ‘here’. If we are looking at indigenousness as a bloodline criterion then said child in the thought experiment might not cut the mustard if you require 50 or 75% of a particular bloodline to be considered from here.

If it is a culture criterion then people who do not practice their original religion or cultural rites these people would by definition no longer be indigenous. I believe that if you were victim of the ‘civilizing’ project then you may no longer have a memory of said culture. At the same time an African from any country on that continent who begins doing the required dances, prayers, offerings, reciting the stories is then practising the culture and should be by definition indigenous. Here is the kicker he has never left his home town and has only local bloodlines. I know that it is a long shot, but again demonstrates that any criterion will eventually run into a problem.

All of that said we can probably go more towards a more passive form of ‘indigenous’ as a more self perception of the concept. A kind of ‘I think therefore I am’ concept. If a person believes themselves to be of a group let them be. The alternative is pigeonholing a person into a group on an arbitrary criterion that they may not wish to be. There are native people in Canada who hide it and live as ‘colonials’. To quote Jonas “Ethically, we must first be willing to pass through an indeterminate period of misunderstanding. It is about the right to misunderstand and be misunderstood with impunity. We must be open to our own inability to understand one another”. I would also predicate this by saying that we need to be constantly moving forward on these issues. As long as we move forward we are good.

On a lighter note, thank you for the link it was very interesting. I thoroughly enjoyed it

Cheers.

Nathaniel, thanks for your post. I think what you have highlighted points to inability of language to formalise identity. Many academics like Bordieu's notion of 'habitus' because it congeals identity without solidifying it. Others prefer the Foucauldian rejection of identity beyond a hermeneutics of the self -- reading oneself as a 'text'. But any intellectual tools we bring to the question of identity risk bringing with them the context in which they were developed; they bring the past with them, and I suspect their effect can be retrogressive.

Isn't this desire to formalise nationality an extension and re-animation of the imperialist project? Doesn't our desire to measure Indigeneity in terms of time on a particular soil hide the same notion of belonging (patria) that we discount by evoking liberal multi-cultural globalisation?

If so, then the paradoxical 'problem' that Indigeneity poses, is that the tools we use to understand it in practice obscure it, that we use to claim it actually negates it, and that we use to discount it reifies it.

Identity is not something to which we can apply mathematics: how long one has dwelt in an area, how much blood flows through one's veins, the number of cultures one inhabits -- because although these are necessary elements, ultimately we a dealing with a mathematics of the soul. As attractive as answers appear, here I think there is more value in the questions, and this is why misunderstanding with impunity is necessary.

But if we insist on answers, and through blood, patria and culture find only questions, where can we go? For me, the only viable criteria is politics, that while Indigeneity manifests as sanguinity, enculturation and patria, it is inherently and definitively political.

A local shock jock (Andrew Bolt) appealed to the popular sensibility by claiming that self-professed Indigenous Australians (basically: "look at them: do they look black to you?") were using the system of affirmative action for political purposes. One cannot debate him by arguing 'no, no, they look white, and have only 12% aboriginal blood, but really they are black!' No, you can only debate him by showing him how correct he is, that not only is this or that claim political, but all Indigeneity is political. It was made political in colonisation, in the marginalisation, displacement and extermination of Aboriginal peoples, in their de-particularisation under the rubric 'Indigenous'.

As I have said previously I am not bringing a high brow academic rhetoric to this discussion, just what I live.

Two key components, from an australian perspective, missing at this point is IDENTITY and ACCEPTANCE. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (used intentionally over indigenous) identify as such. I identify as aborigine. However, if I am not accepted by the aboriginal comunity as such then I am not! This works for government departments and other funding bodies, because without "certification" of my aboriginality I cannot gain housing assistance, or an identified scholarship position.

There is an excusivity to belonging. As a nurse, using culturally appropriate reference to my elders, creates an instant rapport with them. In this time of Closing the Gap in indigenous health inequality in Australia, this is important beyond belief in helping my uncles and aunts to utilise the health system and remove some of the stigma and aloneness. This is an epihpany I have only recently had after 27 years of nursing.

My impression is that "indigenous" is synonymous to what is known in Biology as "autochtonous," e.g., something that was formed or orginated in a given context.

I want to share a definition that emerges from field work about our question. The term "runa" is used in the ecuadorian andes, as a person linked with its territory, the stars, the spirits of nature an with the souls of the dead. This relation comes from a deep exchange betwen the diferent dimensions of the existence, where human being is just part of the sistem. So the indigenous thing is full of meanings in the simbolyc sistem that produces these conceptions, and may not be only relative to a colonialist situation or an occidental political point of view. I´m not saying that´s not important the colonialist point of view, over all that actualy this topic is too relevant in the social and international relations.The great difficult that we as etnographers have is that we need to understand the other by what he actually is, of course, with conscience of the strong influence of golbalization process around the world.

So, the first question led us to a difficult stage and to new questions: ¿where is the boundarie between ethnic groups? ¿can we find in the XXI century a "pure" ingenous group?

Well, Andrea Hilton, I mostly agree with your reasoning, but I'd like to make a point. That "it" has large differences between one and another "it"s. The international consensus, since II World War, incorporate one new feature to that original question (who or what is being indigenous): now, they agree that being indigenous has to do with "being colonized" (see Informe Preliminar del relator Especial Sr. José Martínez Cobo. United NAtions Report E/ CN.4, Sub.2, L.566, parr. 34). Then you have previous societies that were dominated, isolated often, but who maintain part of their , so they can place the concept both in temporal (before/after a conquest or colony) and power related terms (autonomous life/ breaked down sociopolitical structures). IN that sense, see that can only talk about America and Australia -and north of europe- as "real" indigenous peoples (in that international organisms point of view), while all Africa and Asia would only be inhabitated by native societies that simply had a "normal" development...

So, that "it" is a concept, and as every concept is a process, and is made politically for human beings. Asking what an "indigenous" is, is not a naïf question. Maybe we can understand it by intuition or spontaneously (mostly if we are actually indigenous), but the construction of the concept and its differences with others (as native or tribal, for instance...) is something with consecuences, so its good (just my opinion) to critically think over it.

(sorry for my poor english...)

There might also be a difference between the use of "indigenous" as referring to the "first" inhabitants of an area. Such groups may be easy to identify in Australia and Pacific islands, but elsewhere may be very problematic. Who were the original inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula? Even for Native Americans, it is difficult, except, perhaps, for the "Indians" as a generic term for all Native Americans, with the area encompassing both American continents.

Perhaps best to consider the term in the regional context. It might have different meaning when applied to specific political and social questions in Australia or New Zealand, or the position of the Ainu in Japanese history. It might have an entirely different meaning when used in discussion general European or Asian cultures. Linguistically words have meaning is the way the speakers of a language apply a mental construct to them, and who is to judge the legitimacy of one mental construct over another? It becomes less an issue of what a word "means," and more an issue of defining the meaning for its use in a specific political matter when it becomes necesssary to do so, while recognizing that such defining is merely utilitarian, and not all-inclusive.

Indigenous can be a messy term in a number of linguistic contexts. The Saami of Norway (historically referred to as the Lapps) speak a language (diminished in number of speakers because of oppressive Norwegian linguistic practices) that is relatively recent to the area, as the language came from Asia. It would be difficult to call their language 'more or less' indigenous to the area than the Indo-European language that also came into the area.with different intruders. Can we call the Basques the only truly linguistically indigenous people of Europe, as theirs is the only language that survived the Indo-European onslaught?

John raises interesting points. Linguistics, much like genetics, indicates perhaps a basic trait of the human species. It moves. It migrates. Sometimes moving peoples meet resistance or opposition, certainly, and sometimes groups become isolated, and sometimes groups conquer and sometiems groups peacefully comingle.

The way i have been mentored to understand indigenous concepts, things and ways of doing things by diverse indigenous peoples/cultures of Eastern and southern Africa and even amongst my Asiatic friends; which include ways of eating, what to eat, or even when to eat are culturally acceptable indigenous ways/relationships that apply to those of us who recognise those systems and ways, or are a part of the indigenous systems by birth or marriage. Acceptable indigenous ways, thoughts and processes do not die, they are just dominated by modernism for a time, and as circumstances change, they may become dormant, or are relegated to special times in a societies life.