Dec. 1: Indigenous peoples, the state, and globalization: the future of "the indigenous"

? Wilma Mankiller of Cherokee nation in 2009 received the presidential medal of freedom: gave speech about indigenous people in the 21 st century ? minority does not mean small How big of a category are the indigenous peoples?about 5000 self described indigenous groups ? about 14 million people all told in 1997, or about 5% of the human race ? Maybury-Lewish: "they were expected by imperial and postcolonial states to assimilate and/or disappear" ? discourse about vanishing races as indigenous people are disappearing ? expected to assimilate: some people consider ethnography as giving these people a decent burial ? But it hasn't turned out that way (indigenous groups not assimilating/disappearing) I. 1990s : a reversal in discussion ? 1992: world bank recognizes indigenous interests as a policy concern ? 1993: un international year of the indigenous peoples ? 1993: colombia rewrote constitution to redefine the republic as plurinational ? indigenous internationalism: congresses uniting previously indigenous groups ? political self ascertion : Ecuador uprising in 1990: indigenous mobilization ? modern world by Russians cirumpolar distribution of indigenous territories ? Otavalos in Ecuador are a transnational people --> diasporic people ? women living and working in tourist market ? transnational musicians and migrants II. But who is indigenous? narratives of indigeneity ? rights of prior occupancy: in law is a persuasive narrative in some areas: where states and empires overran peoples of less powerful technology ? ameridian and inuit ? saami (laaps) of scandinavia ? suberians, including eveny ? australia aborigines ? laotian mountain people like the hmong ? aiun of northern japan ? Indigeneity less clear when ? various peoples have been moving back and forth over each other's space for milennia , to a point where it's to say whose ancestors "were there first" ? kurds, arabs and turks in asia minor ? arabs, jews, and druse in the Levant ? most of africa, where many bantu-seaking peoples overlap each other and non-bantus ? most of europe ? when the world bank recognized indigenous interests ? they created pressure on many societies to develop narratives of indigeneity ? chapters about being original, first on the land, unique, and oppressed in a way of requiring redress ? as state frontiers once generated the tribes governments thought they were discovering, state/international institutions now generate pressure to package differences as territorial ethnicities ? 4th world: world of tribes; missionaries and other institutions try to help but create more problems ? this is why tribes are pressured to create cultures histories ? reconstituted ethnicities ? an early instance, the lumbee of north carolina, classified as mulatto, in 1952 prevailed on the congress to recognize them as lumbee indians ? in colombia , the people called paez had been declared extinct for well over a century when in the 1980s they began claiming rights to land in the form of a reservation --> they got one reservation ? an interesting colombian case: NW amazonia ? the yurupary legend, from lecture on unilineality ? this cluster of peoples has linguistic exogamy: pme should marry a mate who has a different first language ? so every household is based on a mixed marriage ? when the 1993 constitution required ethnic representation, it created a dilemma for such peoples: can there be ethnicity in this system ? Canadian indiengous people also help govern III. Group rights v. citizen rights A. Group rights vs. "emancipation" and citizen rights ? two depp-rooted ways of thinking of society ? as a pact among citizens: each with specific constitutional rights and duties (fuero) ? the local medieval crowns consolidated under the king ? or the small kingdoms which continued to exist within such modern states and nigeria and indonesia ? or as a pact among groups: individuals who have equal personal rights, none different from another ? the us has elements of both, as do many modern states ? the rights of tribes as "domestic naitons" (nesper) = fueros ? but many other rights such as civil liberties are held to inhere in individuals as citizens ? conflict between these state constructions is a typical theme of modernity ? hostility to the group rights concept ? naitonalists often assert the nation-state should have only one status, namely citizen status ? economic conservatives argue that making indigenous land, oil, and water rights available for asy purchase opens the flow of credit and capital and enriches native regions. some think this justifies any damage to older culture and society ? but in the USA, the standing of Indian treaties as fundamental law upholds tribal rights IV. Lands and Tribes: USA A. The history of tribal land rights ? after wounded knee ? BIA coerced the tribes into boarding schools where American languages were forbidden ? sought to force them to switch to "civilized" lifeways such as farming ? the Dawes act of 1887: parcel reservation lands into "allotments" which tribal members would be alowed to sell ? --> dissolving land of natives ? reservations led to high unemployment and low productivity --> native americans becoming underclass citizens -> food subsidies and roosevelet's administration increaed tribes' standing as units of government B. Termination ? after roosevelt died, pres. truman and then pres. eisenhower returned to a program of "termination" of reservations ? the plan was to terminate Washington's trust relationship with tribes and annul the special status of indians ? wisconsin a battleground of this fight ? in 1954 the BIA chose the wisconsin menominee as the first tribe to be terminated ? they argued that it should be first because it operated a successful forestry operation ? in 1961, the menominee reserervation legally disappeared and became menominee county ? menominee tribes reverses the termination in the 1970s ? economic failure of the privatized tribal enterprise ? 1972, ada deer's colation stopped the sale of menominee resources ? 1973: the nixon administration reinstates the menominee reservation V. The settlement frontiers of development A. Development ideology, demographic change, and "tribal rights" ? after wwii, public health revolutions created crises in peasant societies ? peasant movement to cities created urban demand for expanding food supply ? both created political dangers to states ? the response was colonization of tribal lands by peasants, herders ? looking to remote zones like taiga, steppes ? "lands without people" for logging ? death cristis for amazonian people ? settlement frontiers: Brazil ? Brazil's settlement frontier in the 20th-21st centuries resembles US's in the 19th ? camilo rondon and Brazil's indian protection service of the 1920s: "die if necessary, but kill never" ? reforms of the 1990s defend tribes by creating large protected reserves B. Tribes and borders ? nation-states usualyl see trans-national tribes as border security threats ? brazil, ecuador, peru: insecurity about ties with ethnic peers across "national" borders ? USA: the iroquois of the USA and Canada along the Niagra Falls border C. Indigenous groups and conservation ? as residents of large tracts of undevelopeed land, like the Even of siberia, indigenous groups become controversial concerning conservation ? if land becomes national forest or national park, do they have rights/ ? if so, do states have rights to intervene in tribal land use? ? "stewardship"; joint use models ? makah whaling controversy in WA state VI. Who owns culture ? mimetism and "cultural privacy" ? tourism and multicultural ideology as well as old ideas about "noble savages" ? fuel consumer desire to see the indigenous and experience it ? shamanism ect become cultural commodities ? curing rituals, shamanism, art, sacred regalia ? is it ok for indians to commoditize culture ? is it wrong for non-indians to do so? who decides? ? a typical conflict of the "ethnoscape" age ? global legal struggles over cultural mimesis ? is culture a proprietary right like a patent or a copyright ? if so , who is the owner? the practioner? his tribe? ? if not who has rights ina culture? ? how could one treat human cultural prdocuts as res nulliun a good without an ownder ? this is an area of debate between two models ? cultural rights of property (copyright model) ? cultural rights of privacy (civil rights model)