The Mail

Questioning Indigeneity

In Manvir Singh’s consideration of the use of the term “Indigenous,” he is right to point out that the word has often been attached to the idea of primitiveness—an idea associated with racist stereotypes rooted in colonialism (“You First,” February 27th). But, as he also notes, many communities prefer to self-identify as Indigenous in their political activism. Discussions among Indigenous Brazilian peoples in the wake of the recent election of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva as President are an interesting example of this. Lula’s government initially intended to establish a Ministério dos Povos Originários (best translated as Ministry for Original Peoples), a name chosen to avoid the primitivist stereotyping tied to the word “Indigenous.” The Indigenous peoples of Brazil, however, insisted on replacing “Originários” with “Indígenas,” a more widely recognized and inclusive term. (We thank Altaci Rubim, of the Kokama community, for telling us about these discussions.)

Vera da Silva Sinha and Chris Sinha
Norwich, England

Singh’s essay opens with a speech that the Maasai activist Moringe ole Parkipuny gave to the U.N. Working Group on Indigenous Populations in 1989. I attended the working group’s meetings, as part of a delegation of Navajo Nation citizens and tribal officials, and I remember the event well, in part because of what it revealed about how Indigenous issues are addressed by international bodies.

The working group met in a sort of theatre-in-the-round, with the leaders seated in the center, surrounded by a semicircle of various nongovernmental organizations and their clients, behind whom sat the representatives of the member nations. At the meetings, it was the N.G.O.s, rather than the Indigenous people themselves, that had unfettered access to speaking rights. (We did not have our own speaking rights, and had to communicate through a partner N.G.O.) As a result, Indigenous groups could not participate in the discussions equally.

Who is considered Indigenous was one matter of debate during the meetings—and yet many participants could answer that question only by getting access to speaking rights through partnering N.G.O.s. For most of the Indigenous people, then, the N.G.O.s were effectively gatekeepers.

The question was important to all participants, but the Indigenous people largely seemed to know how they would answer for themselves. Their concerns had more to do with their ability to continue to live on their lands, and to do so in a world with clean air, clean water, and bountiful plants and animals.

Jon Norstog
Portland, Ore.

As a Sherpa person and an academic who focusses on Indigenous life, I was disappointed by Singh’s essay. Singh questions the present-day relevance of the term “Indigenous,” but he does not mention many important developments within Indigenous communities and among Indigenous scholars which have a bearing on the word’s use. For one, contemporary Indigenous academics, artists, and activists have generated a vast body of work that engages with the term critically, attempting to reimagine it in ways that are emancipatory, inclusive, and decolonial. (Much of this work falls under the rubric of critical Indigenous studies.) Singh also elides the fact that much Indigenous self-identification today is based on profound human emotions related to respect, reciprocity, and intergenerational responsibility. Finally, the word “Indigenous” is still the only way for many people to make their existence visible. This is another reason for our powerful attachment to the term.

Pasang Yangjee Sherpa
Assistant Professor of Lifeways in Indigenous Asia
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, B.C.

•

Letters should be sent with the writer’s name, address, and daytime phone number via e-mail to [email protected]. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium. We regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter.