Indigeneity

Anthropology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paulette F. Steeves

There are minimally 370 million Indigenous people in the world. The term Indigenous was not used to identify human groups until recently. Indigenous people are often identified as the First People of a specific regional area. Indigeneity as applied to First People came into use in the 1990s, as many colonized communities fought against erasure, genocide, and forced acculturation under colonial regimes. An often-cited definition of Indigenous peoples is one by Jose Martinez Cobo, special rapporteur for the UN Sub-Commission. Cobo’s 1986 report was completed for the United Nations Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on Prevention and Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, thirty-fifth session, item 12 of the provisional agenda, titled, “Study of the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations.” Cobo described Indigenous people, communities, and nations as groups that have a “historical continuity with pre-colonial societies” within territories they developed, and as communities that “consider themselves distinct from other sectors of societies” now in their territories. Cobo further stressed that Indigenous people and communities are minorities within contemporary populations that work to preserve their ethnic identities and ancestral territories for future generations. It is important to include displaced people whom prior to colonization identified with specific land areas or regional areas as homelands, as well as Indigenous communities that have for decades been in hiding in areas away from their initial homeland areas. Many descendants of Indigenous people were forced to hide their identities for their own safety due to colonization and genocidal policies focused on physical and cultural erasure. That does not make them non-Indigenous. It makes them survivors of genocide, erasure, and forced acculturation. Many Indigenous people are just coming to terms with the impact of ethnic cleansing and the work to reclaim and revive their identities and cultures. Indigenous is both a legal term, and a personal, group, and pan-group identity. Scholars have argued there are at least four thousand Indigenous groups, but that number is likely very low. Indigeneity is not as simple as an opposition to identity erasure or a push back against colonization. Indigeneity is woven through diverse experiences and histories and is often described as a pan-political identity in a postcolonial time. However, that can be misleading, as the world does not yet exist in a postcolonial state, despite ongoing concerted efforts by Indigenous people and their allies in political and academic spheres to decolonize institutions and communities. Diverse Indigenous communities weave Indigeneity through a multifaceted array of space and time to revive identities and cultural practices and to regain or retain land, human rights, heritage, and political standing.

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather A. Howard-Bobiwash ◽  
Jennie R. Joe ◽  
Susan Lobo

Throughout the Americas, most Indigenous people move through urban areas and make their homes in cities. Yet, the specific issues and concerns facing Indigenous people in cities, and the positive protective factors their vibrant urban communities generate are often overlooked and poorly understood. This has been particularly so under COVID-19 pandemic conditions. In the spring of 2020, the United Nations High Commissioner Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples called for information on the impacts of COVID-19 for Indigenous peoples. We took that opportunity to provide a response focused on urban Indigenous communities in the United States and Canada. Here, we expand on that response and Indigenous and human rights lens to review policies and practices impacting the experience of COVID-19 for urban Indigenous communities. Our analysis integrates a discussion of historical and ongoing settler colonialism, and the strengths of Indigenous community-building, as these shape the urban Indigenous experience with COVID-19. Mindful of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we highlight the perspectives of Indigenous organizations which are the lifeline of urban Indigenous communities, focusing on challenges that miscounting poses to data collection and information sharing, and the exacerbation of intersectional discrimination and human rights infringements specific to the urban context. We include Indigenous critiques of the implications of structural oppressions exposed by COVID-19, and the resulting recommendations which have emerged from Indigenous urban adaptations to lockdown isolation, the provision of safety, and delivery of services grounded in Indigenous initiatives and traditional practices.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-85
Author(s):  
Marie M'Balla-Ndi Oelgemoeller ◽  
Levi Obijiofor

Commentary: In a global context of national security anxiety, governments across the world are passing an increasing number of laws in response to terror-related threats. Often, national security laws undermine media freedom and infringe on democratic principles and basic human rights. Threats to media freedom and abuse of journalists are also increasing in Melanesia. This commentary argues that in a regional context of repetitive political coups, failures in governance, high levels of corruption, insurrections, or even media crises, the tensions between national security legislation and media freedom need to be examined cautiously. The authors suggest that strong methodological and theoretical frameworks that allow for serious consideration of cultural practices and protocols will be necessary to conduct research examining these tensions in Melanesia.


SURG Journal ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Reinders

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) calls for the right to self-determination, as self-determination is a prerequisite for Indigenous people to recongnize their political, social, economic, and collective human rights. Canada has historically been unsupportive of UNDRIP as the federal government considers UNDRIP at odds with Canadian sovereignty and existing Canadian institutions. While the right to self-government is currently protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, it is defined narrowly and falls short of allowing meaningful self-government for the majority of Indigenous people.  This paper considers the conflicting nature of self-determination and self-government through considering the impact of Indigenous sovereignty on state sovereignity, an analysis of various approaches to self-government in Canada, and the feasability of adopting a rights-based approach to self-government. This paper concludes that utilizing a human rights-based approach to self-government addresses the perceived conflicts at the state-level while providing for the creation of meaningful self-government arrangements.  Self-government arrangements must be created by Indigenous communities for Indigenous communities in order to reflect the diverse needs of Indigenous people regardless of their territorial affiliation or formal Indian status.   


Social Change ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 475-482
Author(s):  
Zoya Hasan

The recent spread of the delta variant of the COVID-19 pandemic in many countries, though uneven, has once again set alarm bells ringing throughout the world. Nearly two years have passed since the onset of this pandemic: vaccines have been developed and vaccination is underway, but the end of the campaign against the pandemic is nowhere in sight. This drive has merely attempted to adjust and readjust, with or without success, to the various fresh challenges that have kept emerging from time to time. The pandemic’s persistence and its handling by the governments both have had implications for citizens’/peoples’ rights as well as for the systems which were in place before the pandemic. In this symposium domain experts investigate, with a sharp focus on India, the interface between the COVID-19 pandemic and democracy, health, education and social sciences. These contributions are notable for their nuanced and insightful examination of the impact of the pandemic on crucial social development issues with special attention to the exacerbated plight of society’s marginalised sections. In India, as in several other countries, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected democracy. The health crisis came at a moment when India was already experiencing democratic backsliding. The pandemic came in handy in imposing greater restrictions on democratic rights, public discussion and political opposition. This note provides an analysis and commentary on how the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic impacted governance, at times undermining human rights and democratic processes, and posing a range of new challenges to democracy.


Author(s):  
Prajjval Pratap Singh ◽  
Prashanth Suravajhala ◽  
Chandana Basu Mallick ◽  
Rakesh Tamang ◽  
Ashutosh Kumar Rai ◽  
...  

AbstractThe rapid expansion of coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has impacted various ethnic groups all over the world. The burden of infectious diseases including COVID-19 are generally reported to be higher for the Indigenous people. The historical knowledge have also suggested that the indigenous populations suffer more than the general populations in the pandemic. Recently, it has been reported that the indigenous groups of Brazil have been massively affected by COVID-19. Series of studies have shown that many of the indigenous communities reached at the verge of extinction due to this pandemic. Importantly, South Asia also has several indigenous and smaller communities, that are living in isolation. Till date, despite the two consecutive waves in India, there is no report on the impact of COVID-19 for indigenous tribes. Since smaller populations experiencing drift may have greater risk of such pandemic, we have analysed Runs of Homozygosity (ROH) among South Asian populations and identified several populations with longer homozygous segments. The longer runs of homozygosity at certain genomic regions may increases the susceptibility for COVID-19. Thus, we suggest extreme careful management of this pandemic among isolated populations of South Asia.


2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
David L. Blustein ◽  
Maureen E. Kenny ◽  
Annamaria Di Fabio ◽  
Jean Guichard

Building on new developments in the psychology of working framework (PWF) and psychology of working theory (PWT), this article proposes a rationale and research agenda for applied psychologists and career development professionals to contribute to the many challenges related to human rights and decent work. Recent and ongoing changes in the world are contributing to a significant loss of decent work, including a rise of unemployment, underemployment, and precarious work across the globe. By failing to satisfy human needs for economic survival, social connection, and self-determination, the loss of decent work undermines individual and societal well-being, particularly for marginalized groups and those without highly marketable skills. Informed by innovations in the PWF/PWT, we offer exemplary research agendas that focus on examining the psychological meaning and impact of economic and social protections, balancing caregiving work and market work, making work more just, and enhancing individual capacities for coping and adapting to changes in the world of work. These examples are intended to stimulate new ideas and initiatives for psychological research that will inform and enhance efforts pertaining to work as a human right.


Author(s):  
Claradina Soto ◽  
Toni Handboy ◽  
Ruth Supranovich ◽  
Eugenia L. Weiss

This chapter describes the impact of colonialism on indigenous women with a focus on the experience of the Lakota women on the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Reservation in South Dakota. It explores the experiences of indigenous women as related to history, culture, intrapersonal violence, and internalized oppression. A case study of a Lakota woman is provided as an example of strength and triumph in overcoming adversity and being empowered despite the challenges of marginalization faced by many Native Americans in the United States and indigenous women throughout the world. The chapter discusses how readers can be advocates and actively engage in decolonizing and dismantling systems of oppression to protect future generations and to allow indigenous communities to heal and revitalize.


2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 320-334
Author(s):  
Silas W. Allard

In her essay “The Decline of the Nation-State and the End of the Rights of Man,” Hannah Arendt famously wrote, “Nobody had been aware that mankind, for so long a time considered under the image of a family of nations, had reached the state where whoever was thrown out of one of these tightly organized closed communities found himself thrown out of the family of nations altogether.” Surveying the aftermath of the world wars, the same aftermath that eventually led to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Arendt found that a person had to be emplaced—the subject of a political space—in the state-oriented order of geopolitics to be cognizable as a subject of human rights. The stateless, being displaced, were excluded from such a regime of rights and from the global political community. Bare humanity, Arendt argued, was an insufficiently binding political identity. As she wrote in her arresting language, “The world found nothing sacred in the abstract nakedness of being human.”


1970 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-198
Author(s):  
Serlika Aprita ◽  
Lilies Anisah

The Covid-19 pandemic was taking place in almost all countries around the world. Along with the increasingly vigorous government strategy in tackling the spread of the corona virus that was still endemic until now, the government had started to enforce the Large-Scale Social Restrictions (PSBB) with the signing of Government Regulation (PP) No. 21 of 2020 about PSBB which was considered able to accelerate countermeasures while preventing the spread of corona that was increasingly widespread in Indonesia. The research method used was normative prescriptive. The government put forward the principle of the state as a problem solver. The government minimized the use of region errors as legitimacy to decentralization. The government should facilitated regional best practices in handling the pandemic. Thus, the pandemic can be handled more effectively. The consideration, the region had special needs which were not always accommodated in national policies. The government policy should be able to encourage the birth of regional innovations in handling the pandemic as a form of fulfilling human rights in the field of health. Innovation was useful in getting around the limitations and differences in the context of each region. In principle, decentralization required positive incentives, not penalties. Therefore, incentive-based central policies were more awaited in handling and minimizing the impact of the pandemic.    


Author(s):  
Feddious Mutenheri

Subsequent to the appearance of the COVID-19 contagion, governments around the world were confronted with the challenge of combating its spread. It has been established that the infection is predominantly human to human and this reality informed the approaches used to counter it. Governments, particularly those perceived to have impeccable democratic credentials, had the difficult decision to deploy martial laws against laissez faire tactics in order to save lives. Most countries resorted to martial law, which gave leaders of governments unfettered state power to make decisions “to save lives”. Whereas most Western countries took a wait-and-see approach in implementing State of Emergencies, China and most countries in the developing world were quick to declare them. Developing countries’ records on human rights are generally poor. There has been a worldwide human rights confrontation between governments and citizens on the extent of the instruments used to fight COVID 19. Have these instruments been effective? Have they been the only necessary and key instruments to fight the pandemic? To what extent did they impinge on the human rights imperatives of the citizen? This paper interrogates the necessity of using these instruments to combat COVID-19 and their consequences on people’s rights. The paper presents the instruments used in Zimbabwe and Botswana and uses the Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA) to compare their consequences on people’s freedoms in these countries. This research uses mixed methods in interrogating the impact of the administrative instruments that were used to combat COVID 19. Where necessary, descriptive and ethnographic approaches are employed to deepen the understanding of the impact of these instruments on human rights.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document